Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[Freewill]

From the Washington state consitution:

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 88, 1993 House Joint Resolution No. 4200, p 3062. Approved November 2, 1993.]

Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution

How does the courts ruling jive with the state constitution?

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

I did read and I agree with them. What the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state. The state is the people, all of the people.

Since you picked those two can you answer me how it effects the safety of the state?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

If heterosexuals want to have unions, go for it. You want the name changed, the onus is on you to change it. BTW, civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights is the epitome of separate but equal.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Best written post you have ever made.

Certainly the most cogent.

Let me double down...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Syriusly]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. .

You blathered on and on.

Civil marriage is not a religious marriage.

Ask a Catholic-

Catholic Wedding Q&A

Can we get married by a justice of the peace in a civil ceremony and then have a Catholic wedding?
The Church does not recognize a civil wedding ceremony as valid when one or both people are Catholic. If a couple are married in a civil ceremony, the Catholic person(s) are asked to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until the marriage is recognized as valid by the Church. The reason for this, in a nutshell, is that the Church recognizes marriage as a spiritual reality, not just a piece of paper or a legal formality.

 

[koshergrl]

From the Washington state consitution:

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 88, 1993 House Joint Resolution No. 4200, p 3062. Approved November 2, 1993.]

Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution

How does the courts ruling jive with the state constitution?

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

I did read and I agree with them. What the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state. The state is the people, all of the people.

So we have to attend queer marriage ceremonies when summoned, regardless of whether we want to or not. Got it.

 

[koshergrl]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?

My point is you're a fascist pig.

 

[Ravi]

"I choose to make this priest attend my homosexual lover's "baptism" and hand out towels as we step naked out of the Jacuzzi, then perform ritual fellatio. After all, he belongs to a religion where nuns participate in selling hand stitched linen..."

That's the prog fascist concept of homo choice.

Sorry, your fantasy baptism would not force a priest in attendance since the church doesn't allow homosexual's to be members.

Good luck with it, though.

But according to the homo lobby, the priest is an employee of the church, and the church makes linens for profit...so the priest is legally bound to hand out towels to naked queers, and to smile while he does it.

No, it doesn't work that way.

So we agree.

You can't force people to participate in rituals that have religious significance. Even if you are just making fun of it.

No, you can't force a church to accept members it has no interest in accepting.

 

[PratchettFan]

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

I did read and I agree with them. What the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state. The state is the people, all of the people.

Since you picked those two can you answer me how it effects the safety of the state?

Preventing a citizen of a state from obtaining goods, services, lodging, etc. based solely upon who or what they are is detrimental to that citizen. It directly applies to their health and safety. It is thus a valid duty of the state to ensure this does not happen. The state has chosen not to differentiate between types of goods and services within the law and simply said such discrimination is not allowed across the board.

It is the intent of that particular section of the State Constitution to prevent discrimination or persecution of someone on the basis of their religion. It seems a tad hypocritical to use that as a reason to do precisely that to someone else.

 

[koshergrl]

"I choose to make this priest attend my homosexual lover's "baptism" and hand out towels as we step naked out of the Jacuzzi, then perform ritual fellatio. After all, he belongs to a religion where nuns participate in selling hand stitched linen..."

That's the prog fascist concept of homo choice.

Sorry, your fantasy baptism would not force a priest in attendance since the church doesn't allow homosexual's to be members.

Good luck with it, though.

But according to the homo lobby, the priest is an employee of the church, and the church makes linens for profit...so the priest is legally bound to hand out towels to naked queers, and to smile while he does it.

No, it doesn't work that way.

So we agree.

You can't force people to participate in rituals that have religious significance. Even if you are just making fun of it.

No, you can't force a church to accept members it has no interest in accepting.

Random association moment? Different topic. Focus.

 

[koshergrl]

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

I did read and I agree with them. What the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state. The state is the people, all of the people.

Since you picked those two can you answer me how it effects the safety of the state?

Preventing a citizen of a state from obtaining goods, services, lodging, etc. based solely upon who or what they are is detrimental to that citizen. It directly applies to their health and safety. It is thus a valid duty of the state to ensure this does not happen. The state has chosen not to differentiate between types of goods and services within the law and simply said such discrimination is not allowed across the board.

It is the intent of that particular section of the State Constitution to prevent discrimination or persecution of someone on the basis of their religion. It seems a tad hypocritical to use that as a reason to do precisely that to someone else.

Nobody prevented anything. They just didn't participate in a ritual they find offensive for religious reasons.

Next.

 

[Ravi]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

Marriage isn't religious. A marriage ceremony in a church is religious.

 

[PratchettFan]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?

My point is you're a fascist pig.

Interesting. I can't see the connection myself.

 

[koshergrl]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

Marriage isn't religious. A marriage ceremony in a church is religious.

We believe it's religious. Sorry you can't force us to believe (or act) otherwise.

 

[koshergrl]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?

My point is you're a fascist pig.

Interesting. I can't see the connection myself.

A lying fascist pig.

 

[Syriusly]

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

I did read and I agree with them. What the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state. The state is the people, all of the people.

So we have to attend queer marriage ceremonies when summoned, regardless of whether we want to or not. Got it.

No, you are just lying again. And you know it.

Selling flowers is not a marriage ceremony.

 

[PratchettFan]

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

I did read and I agree with them. What the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state. The state is the people, all of the people.

Since you picked those two can you answer me how it effects the safety of the state?

Preventing a citizen of a state from obtaining goods, services, lodging, etc. based solely upon who or what they are is detrimental to that citizen. It directly applies to their health and safety. It is thus a valid duty of the state to ensure this does not happen. The state has chosen not to differentiate between types of goods and services within the law and simply said such discrimination is not allowed across the board.

It is the intent of that particular section of the State Constitution to prevent discrimination or persecution of someone on the basis of their religion. It seems a tad hypocritical to use that as a reason to do precisely that to someone else.

Nobody prevented anything. They just didn't participate in a ritual they find offensive for religious reasons.

Next.

I think not. But feel free to move on it you like.

 

[PratchettFan]

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?

My point is you're a fascist pig.

Interesting. I can't see the connection myself.

A lying fascist pig.

No, really. I don't see the connection. Care to explain it?

 

[Ravi]

Sorry, your fantasy baptism would not force a priest in attendance since the church doesn't allow homosexual's to be members.

Good luck with it, though.

But according to the homo lobby, the priest is an employee of the church, and the church makes linens for profit...so the priest is legally bound to hand out towels to naked queers, and to smile while he does it.

No, it doesn't work that way.

So we agree.

You can't force people to participate in rituals that have religious significance. Even if you are just making fun of it.

No, you can't force a church to accept members it has no interest in accepting.

Random association moment? Different topic. Focus.

You should tell yourself that. Your baptism scenario would not happen because the priest the church in question belongs to does not accept homosexuals. Not to mention that the church runs baptisms, not the parishioner.

In other words, you are a lunatic.

 

[Ravi]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

Marriage isn't religious. A marriage ceremony in a church is religious.

We believe it's religious. Sorry you can't force us to believe (or act) otherwise.

Who is we?

 

[koshergrl]

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?

My point is you're a fascist pig.

Interesting. I can't see the connection myself.

A lying fascist pig.

No, really. I don't see the connection. Care to explain it?

No, I don't need to. Everybody else gets it.

 

[koshergrl]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

Marriage isn't religious. A marriage ceremony in a church is religious.

We believe it's religious. Sorry you can't force us to believe (or act) otherwise.

Who is we?

Ah, you're attempting to focus! We = Christians.