Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[Seawytch]

Um...you didn't answer the question. Who can gays not marry that straights can? It's pretty simple. Blacks could easily name blacks who could not marry the same people as whites. All of them. For gays it's none of you.

The argument is exactly like yours...they can still marry, just not who they want to.

No, that wasn't my argument. I've explained it so many times at this point I have to just conclude you are too stupid to grasp the discussion

Your argument is exactly like theirs, replacing gender with race. It's still discrimination with no rational basis. (Hence the losing)

Yes, I'm aware of your troll thread. Muslim extremists are not a greater threat here in the United States than bigots trying to take away civil rights from gay people

So how is it a "troll thread" if you are saying straight out you agree with option 2?

And yes, you've mentioned your hysterical fear of gun toting toddlers, life is a scary thing to you. Uh, oh, look behind you. A three year old, and he's armed!!!!

I don't have an irrational fear of toddlers or of Islamic terrorists...despite toddlers being statistically more dangerous.

 

[martybegan]

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce, and really doesn't apply because most of these laws are at the state level. The commerce clause is also meant for gross macro economic functions, not a baker and a cake. And again, Americans don't like bullies. keep this up and you will start seeing more and more opposition to using PA laws as a weapon for social change.

Most Americans believe that businesses should serve gays. And most support gay marriage. Its hard to play the victim when what you're defending is naked discrimination. Or to muster much outrage when the 'freedom' you claim to defend is treating someone else like a piece of shit.

Yes, they do, but once you ask them should government fine businesses that don't serve gays, the approval of that drops below 50%. So they want the end result, just not using the method you want to use, i.e. government force.

Americans aren't mobilizing on the distinction. As the bakers are in a very unsympathetic position, blatantly discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Which the public agrees they must not be allowed to do by a 70 to 30 split.

When your 'victim' is defending the 'right' to treat others like shit, you're not going to find significant increases in opposition to them being fined.

When these bakers denied service, do you have evidence they did it in a mean way, or rudely? They do not agree with the person's lifestyle, and don't want to participate in their wedding.

Do you have evidence that what you're asking about is remotely relevant to what we're discussing?

and yet the can get crowdfunded to help pay the fine, or cover their costs (until the crowfund site knuckled under to intolerant assholes). And these are the first few cases. Again, Americans hate bullies, and your side is the bully in all this.

Are you honestly using a crowd sourcing campaign as some sort of national straw poll? You have a small minority that are fiercely opposed to gays and gay marriage. But they are a minority that is dwindling as the nation moves toward acceptance of gays at a speed that has stunned pollsters. The lingering anti-gay sentiment is concentrated overwhelmingly in old conservatives.

You're not going to get much sympathy from the public at large for a baker treating their customers like shit based on their sexual orientation. An activity a super majority oppose.

Just wait for the sympathy you will get when more and more of these "bake or die" cases keep piling up. If you are winning at the polls as you say, why the need to use government force to get your way?

And you still haven't posted any evidence of people being treated like shit, so I'll just mark that up to your usual unsupported hyperbole.

 

[Skylar]

Most Americans believe that businesses should serve gays. And most support gay marriage. Its hard to play the victim when what you're defending is naked discrimination. Or to muster much outrage when the 'freedom' you claim to defend is treating someone else like a piece of shit.

Yes, they do, but once you ask them should government fine businesses that don't serve gays, the approval of that drops below 50%. So they want the end result, just not using the method you want to use, i.e. government force.

Americans aren't mobilizing on the distinction. As the bakers are in a very unsympathetic position, blatantly discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Which the public agrees they must not be allowed to do by a 70 to 30 split.

When your 'victim' is defending the 'right' to treat others like shit, you're not going to find significant increases in opposition to them being fined.

When these bakers denied service, do you have evidence they did it in a mean way, or rudely? They do not agree with the person's lifestyle, and don't want to participate in their wedding.

Do you have evidence that what you're asking about is remotely relevant to what we're discussing?

and yet the can get crowdfunded to help pay the fine, or cover their costs (until the crowfund site knuckled under to intolerant assholes). And these are the first few cases. Again, Americans hate bullies, and your side is the bully in all this.

Are you honestly using a crowd sourcing campaign as some sort of national straw poll? You have a small minority that are fiercely opposed to gays and gay marriage. But they are a minority that is dwindling as the nation moves toward acceptance of gays at a speed that has stunned pollsters. The lingering anti-gay sentiment is concentrated overwhelmingly in old conservatives.

You're not going to get much sympathy from the public at large for a baker treating their customers like shit based on their sexual orientation. An activity a super majority oppose.

Just wait for the sympathy you will get when more and more of these "bake or die" cases keep piling up.

To the best of my knowledge, there's been no executions associated with the application of PA laws. So you may be taking hyperbole to a rather silly extreme.

I think for the public at large, you're not going to see much sympathy for the bakers and their like for the reason I've described. But it does mobilize the small minority that are emotionally and religiously invested in opposition to gay marriage. All for a handful of cakes on an issue that we both agree isn't exactly something vital to one's access to the economy.

I consider it a poor ROI for advocates of gay marriage. As without it......they have a pretty complete victory.

 

[danielpalos]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

What you might find 'comical' has no bearing on the fact that public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where these fundamental principles that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on race are being consistently, lawfully, and appropriately applied to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation as well.

Public Accommodation Laws do NOT serve to defend, support or otherwise PROMOTE DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.

And that IS what we're talking about here... BEHAVIOR. NOT a genetic component relevant to a half or third gender... it is BEHAVIOR.

So stuff you illicit 'interpretation' of Public Accommodation Laws and the same for those of the Judiciary which 'finds' as you find.

You're going to come to find; and I expect sooner rather than later, that the downside to Relativism is that it undermines the means for people to find justice. And when people can't find justice through the judiciary, they get it themselves.

Now you panty-waists are hardly in a position to push people around. And I Know that you 'feel you are, because you feel you have "THE LAW" on your side.

But you're a teeny tiny little minority... right?

And I'm sure you'll agree that blacks are a teeny tiny little minority... although in defense of the blacks, they represent a minority which represents an order of magnitude greater composition then you idiots.

Turn the channel over to MSNBC... and look at what the teeny tiny little minority is doing in Baltimore. LOOK AT HOW BIG THEY ARE!

Now, over the next few days, you're going to see the majority come down on them like a brick through a glass pane... (Pun intended). And you're goin' to see that minority scatter like cockroaches.

Now IMAGINE... if instead of that minority busting up Whiteyville... that it's THE MAJORITY that's marching through BROWNTOWN burning it down and killing everything that runs out of the burning hovel.

Now here's the coolest part... WHOS COMING TO SAVE BROWN TOWN WHEN ITS THE MAJORITY? The Homosexuals? (Order of Magnitude... remember that lesson? ... So probably not, huh?)

Don't poke the bear Fester. Understand?

Where do you come up with your Standards for "deviancy"? Should we apply a Standard of Review of JOB 34:30?

The human sexual standard is, quite simply, the design intrinsic to human physiology. Wherein the human species is designed with two distinct but complimenting genders... Specifically designed to join as one, which is precisely the function of marriage. Physiologically, human the two genders join together, establishing one body. Which is the same thing in the behavioral extension marriage, wherein the two genders join as one entity.

Now with regards to deviancy.

Homosexuality not only deviates from the human physiological standard... It deviates as far from that standard as is humanly possible; a full 180 degrees.

It's not even a debatable point.

How does that compare and contrast to Spartan policies public regarding the common Defense.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they do, but once you ask them should government fine businesses that don't serve gays, the approval of that drops below 50%. So they want the end result, just not using the method you want to use, i.e. government force.

Americans aren't mobilizing on the distinction. As the bakers are in a very unsympathetic position, blatantly discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Which the public agrees they must not be allowed to do by a 70 to 30 split.

When your 'victim' is defending the 'right' to treat others like shit, you're not going to find significant increases in opposition to them being fined.

When these bakers denied service, do you have evidence they did it in a mean way, or rudely? They do not agree with the person's lifestyle, and don't want to participate in their wedding.

Do you have evidence that what you're asking about is remotely relevant to what we're discussing?

and yet the can get crowdfunded to help pay the fine, or cover their costs (until the crowfund site knuckled under to intolerant assholes). And these are the first few cases. Again, Americans hate bullies, and your side is the bully in all this.

Are you honestly using a crowd sourcing campaign as some sort of national straw poll? You have a small minority that are fiercely opposed to gays and gay marriage. But they are a minority that is dwindling as the nation moves toward acceptance of gays at a speed that has stunned pollsters. The lingering anti-gay sentiment is concentrated overwhelmingly in old conservatives.

You're not going to get much sympathy from the public at large for a baker treating their customers like shit based on their sexual orientation. An activity a super majority oppose.

Just wait for the sympathy you will get when more and more of these "bake or die" cases keep piling up.

To the best of my knowledge, there's been no executions associated with the application of PA laws. So you may be taking hyperbole to a rather silly extreme.

I think for the public at large, you're not going to see much sympathy for the bakers and their like for the reason I've described. But it does mobilize the small minority that are emotionally and religiously invested in opposition to gay marriage. All for a handful of cakes on an issue that we both agree isn't exactly something vital to one's access to the economy.

I consider it a poor ROI for advocates of gay marriage. As without it......they have a pretty complete victory.

And you are bringing the weight of government down on the "handful" of people who don't want to go along with you. Who is oppressing a minority now?

If you have sympathy for someone you are defending when it comes to their speech/association, you really aren't and advocate of free speech/association. You have to defend people you disagree with, as I do, to be a supporter of freedom.

and honestly, over a freaking cake, a $150k fine or forcing someone out of business is closer to executing them than to saying "i don't like what you are doing, please stop it"

 

[Skylar]

Americans aren't mobilizing on the distinction. As the bakers are in a very unsympathetic position, blatantly discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Which the public agrees they must not be allowed to do by a 70 to 30 split.

When your 'victim' is defending the 'right' to treat others like shit, you're not going to find significant increases in opposition to them being fined.

Do you have evidence that what you're asking about is remotely relevant to what we're discussing?

and yet the can get crowdfunded to help pay the fine, or cover their costs (until the crowfund site knuckled under to intolerant assholes). And these are the first few cases. Again, Americans hate bullies, and your side is the bully in all this.

Are you honestly using a crowd sourcing campaign as some sort of national straw poll? You have a small minority that are fiercely opposed to gays and gay marriage. But they are a minority that is dwindling as the nation moves toward acceptance of gays at a speed that has stunned pollsters. The lingering anti-gay sentiment is concentrated overwhelmingly in old conservatives.

You're not going to get much sympathy from the public at large for a baker treating their customers like shit based on their sexual orientation. An activity a super majority oppose.

Just wait for the sympathy you will get when more and more of these "bake or die" cases keep piling up.

To the best of my knowledge, there's been no executions associated with the application of PA laws. So you may be taking hyperbole to a rather silly extreme.

I think for the public at large, you're not going to see much sympathy for the bakers and their like for the reason I've described. But it does mobilize the small minority that are emotionally and religiously invested in opposition to gay marriage. All for a handful of cakes on an issue that we both agree isn't exactly something vital to one's access to the economy.

I consider it a poor ROI for advocates of gay marriage. As without it......they have a pretty complete victory.

And you are bringing the weight of government down on the "handful" of people who don't want to go along with you. Who is oppressing a minority now?

Not me. Their respective States. And its not whether they go along with me. But whether or not they go along with the laws of their states. If they don't, they're subject to fines.

And no, these laws are not voluntary.

 

[martybegan]

and yet the can get crowdfunded to help pay the fine, or cover their costs (until the crowfund site knuckled under to intolerant assholes). And these are the first few cases. Again, Americans hate bullies, and your side is the bully in all this.

Are you honestly using a crowd sourcing campaign as some sort of national straw poll? You have a small minority that are fiercely opposed to gays and gay marriage. But they are a minority that is dwindling as the nation moves toward acceptance of gays at a speed that has stunned pollsters. The lingering anti-gay sentiment is concentrated overwhelmingly in old conservatives.

You're not going to get much sympathy from the public at large for a baker treating their customers like shit based on their sexual orientation. An activity a super majority oppose.

Just wait for the sympathy you will get when more and more of these "bake or die" cases keep piling up.

To the best of my knowledge, there's been no executions associated with the application of PA laws. So you may be taking hyperbole to a rather silly extreme.

I think for the public at large, you're not going to see much sympathy for the bakers and their like for the reason I've described. But it does mobilize the small minority that are emotionally and religiously invested in opposition to gay marriage. All for a handful of cakes on an issue that we both agree isn't exactly something vital to one's access to the economy.

I consider it a poor ROI for advocates of gay marriage. As without it......they have a pretty complete victory.

And you are bringing the weight of government down on the "handful" of people who don't want to go along with you. Who is oppressing a minority now?

Not me. Their respective States. And its not whether they go along with me. But whether or not they go along with the laws of their states. If they don't, they're subject to fines.

And no, these laws are not voluntary.

If you support them, then don't weasel out and separate your desires from the actions that result from them. Own up to oppressing your fellow citizens the cowardly way, using bureaucrats to do your dirty work.

These laws shouldn't apply to these situations in the first place, so the matter of them being mandatory/voluntary is moot.

and you really believe not serving a cake is worthy of a $130k fine?

 

[kaz]

No, that wasn't my argument. I've explained it so many times at this point I have to just conclude you are too stupid to grasp the discussion

Your argument is exactly like theirs, replacing gender with race. It's still discrimination with no rational basis. (Hence the losing)

They argued that being black didn't change who you could marry? You are retarted

Yes, I'm aware of your troll thread. Muslim extremists are not a greater threat here in the United States than bigots trying to take away civil rights from gay people

So how is it a "troll thread" if you are saying straight out you agree with option 2?

And yes, you've mentioned your hysterical fear of gun toting toddlers, life is a scary thing to you. Uh, oh, look behind you. A three year old, and he's armed!!!!

I don't have an irrational fear of toddlers or of Islamic terrorists...despite toddlers being statistically more dangerous.

 

[kaz]

Your argument is exactly like theirs, replacing gender with race. It's still discrimination with no rational basis. (Hence the losing)

They argued that being black didn't change who you could marry? You are retarded, obviously they did not argue that

I don't have an irrational fear of toddlers or of Islamic terrorists...despite toddlers being statistically more dangerous.

So do you murder toddlers before they can get you? Or do you wait for them to make their move first?

 

[Skylar]

Are you honestly using a crowd sourcing campaign as some sort of national straw poll? You have a small minority that are fiercely opposed to gays and gay marriage. But they are a minority that is dwindling as the nation moves toward acceptance of gays at a speed that has stunned pollsters. The lingering anti-gay sentiment is concentrated overwhelmingly in old conservatives.

You're not going to get much sympathy from the public at large for a baker treating their customers like shit based on their sexual orientation. An activity a super majority oppose.

Just wait for the sympathy you will get when more and more of these "bake or die" cases keep piling up.

To the best of my knowledge, there's been no executions associated with the application of PA laws. So you may be taking hyperbole to a rather silly extreme.

I think for the public at large, you're not going to see much sympathy for the bakers and their like for the reason I've described. But it does mobilize the small minority that are emotionally and religiously invested in opposition to gay marriage. All for a handful of cakes on an issue that we both agree isn't exactly something vital to one's access to the economy.

I consider it a poor ROI for advocates of gay marriage. As without it......they have a pretty complete victory.

And you are bringing the weight of government down on the "handful" of people who don't want to go along with you. Who is oppressing a minority now?

Not me. Their respective States. And its not whether they go along with me. But whether or not they go along with the laws of their states. If they don't, they're subject to fines.

And no, these laws are not voluntary.

If you support them, then don't weasel out and separate your desires from the actions that result from them.

I have no authority on the matter. I don't live in any of the States where State PA laws are being enforced. Its not me who is 'enforcing' anything. Its the respective States. You're trying to make this about me when I play no role in the matter. I don't vote on any issue, I don't live in the State, I'm not subject to those laws.

I don't even bake.

Face it. You're trying to make me the emphasis because we both know that the State has the authority over intrastate commerce. And that PA laws are completely constitutional. So you can't win on legal grounds. And this is a legal matter.

As for the opposition from Americans, the bakers aren't particularly sympathetic. As the 'freedom' they are trying to defend is treating others like shit.

 

[martybegan]

Just wait for the sympathy you will get when more and more of these "bake or die" cases keep piling up.

To the best of my knowledge, there's been no executions associated with the application of PA laws. So you may be taking hyperbole to a rather silly extreme.

I think for the public at large, you're not going to see much sympathy for the bakers and their like for the reason I've described. But it does mobilize the small minority that are emotionally and religiously invested in opposition to gay marriage. All for a handful of cakes on an issue that we both agree isn't exactly something vital to one's access to the economy.

I consider it a poor ROI for advocates of gay marriage. As without it......they have a pretty complete victory.

And you are bringing the weight of government down on the "handful" of people who don't want to go along with you. Who is oppressing a minority now?

Not me. Their respective States. And its not whether they go along with me. But whether or not they go along with the laws of their states. If they don't, they're subject to fines.

And no, these laws are not voluntary.

If you support them, then don't weasel out and separate your desires from the actions that result from them.

I have no authority on the matter. I don't live in any of the States where State PA laws are being enforced. Its not me who is 'enforcing' anything. Its the respective States. You're trying to make this about me when I play no role in the matter. I don't vote on any issue, I don't live in the State, I'm not subject to those laws.

I don't even bake.

Face it. You're trying to make me the emphasis because we both know that the State has the authority over intrastate commerce. And that PA laws are completely constitutional. So you can't win on legal grounds. And this is a legal matter.

As for the opposition from Americans, the bakers aren't particularly sympathetic. As the 'freedom' they are trying to defend is treating others like shit.

I am linking your views to the inevitable outcomes, i.e. the government enforcing its will on people. Since in this case you support it, you have to own it. This cowardly attempt to separate desired outcome from achieving method is unbecoming.

And things found constitutional by idiot courts can be unfound constitutional by more rational ones.

And again, you equate disagreeing with people and not wanting to do business with them as "treating them like shit" when you have zero basis for such a claim.

Its basically you screaming "Mommy Mommy, the mean people won't agree with what I say, and I WANT THEM TO"

 

[emilynghiem]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

The difference is that those who do not believe in gay marriage are trying to tell others who they can and cannot marry

You are legally married or you are not

How can a couple be legally married in one state and then be not married as they drive through another state?

Yes and no rightwinger
A. if marriage were kept private in churches, then nobody can tell anyone else what they can or cannot do within their own organizations or personal religious beliefs
B. the PROBLEM is if marriage is kept on the PUBLIC level of policy, where EVERYONE has the right to either have all beliefs represented where there is no discrimination or NO BELIEFS represented where there is no discrimination.

So on the PUBLIC level (similar to public schools) if people don't agree on beliefs or terms of marriage,
then technically NO BELIEFS on EITHER SIDE should be represented or endorsed by govt.

For govt to endorse ONE set of beliefs over the other, would be to establish a religious bias or bias based on belief
of one group over the other. It doesn't matter if the Traditional marriage, Gay marriage, or beliefs in equality/both
get endorse by Govt --- that is STILL ENDORSING a belief if the other sets DO NOT AGREE to comply with that.

Now, if you want, you can say that REMOVING ALL MARRIAGE from govt is also a BELIEF in keeping this neutral.

So if people don't want that, then they would have to settle another way:
A. either AGREE how to write the laws NEUTRALLY, such as substituting words like civil union or partnership
for marriage if that is the hotbutton word that is causing conflict religiously (like removing the word God or heaven
or Jesus from public documents if that TERM is contested).
B. or AGREE to remove all marriage from public institutions and keep this private

Whatever is decided should be by the CONSENT of the people of each state, or of the entire nation, so that the PEOPLE are deciding how to settle their disputes, since BELIEFS are involved that Govt is not supposed to decide for us!

This is like if Hindus and Muslims went to court, arguing over whether to ban pork or beef, the Court has no right to tell the Muslims they have to follow the terms of the Hindus or the Hindus they have to follow Muslim policy. The court should protect both beliefs equally and order them to remain separated.

It is NOT against the law to have different religious beliefs. So why punish either side for their beliefs? Let them remain equally free to exercise individually and NOT force one way through govt!

Otherwise it is an abuse of Govt to decide a matter of faith where the people disagree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Ah, yes. And don't forget "Liberals: proudly enslaving people to their own agenda since . . . forever".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We allow people with closely held religious beliefs avoid serving in the Military, but let a baker claim that his/her closely held religious beliefs preempt him from baking a cake for a bunch of fags?

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

Now, be fair. Leftists don't want people to be exempt from military service for their religious beliefs, either.

 

[Seawytch]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Ah, yes. And don't forget "Liberals: proudly enslaving people to their own agenda since . . . forever".

So ya'll are finally admitting it was liberals that supported the Civil Rights Act?

 

[Seawytch]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

 

[Seawytch]

We allow people with closely held religious beliefs avoid serving in the Military, but let a baker claim that his/her closely held religious beliefs preempt him from baking a cake for a bunch of fags?

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

Now, be fair. Leftists don't want people to be exempt from military service for their religious beliefs, either.

So you don't think there's a difference between required military service and voluntarily opening a business in the public sphere?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

5. People who don't believe in having any government marriage

I believe that government has a vested interest in recognizing and sanctioning some relationships. That interest is NOT the validation and personal warm fuzzies of the individuals involved. I have yet to see any concrete evidence that homosexual relationships produce any benefit to society as a whole, and therefore see no reason why society as a whole should behave as though they do. Heterosexual marriages have been shown through millennia of human experience to be beneficial to society, which is why modern-day societies have codified that into their laws.

Before anyone decides to go, "Aha! Straight marriages today suck because . . .", that is a separate topic entirely which has nothing to do with this, so don't even bother.

I also do not believe that recognizing or sanctioning a relationship brings that relationship into existence, or that declining to legally recognize or sanction all relationship permutations as exactly equal and equivalent constitutes any sort of "ban" on those relationships. I have very little patience for the deliberately sloppy conflation of terms in order to advance agendas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Yes, it's all about you personally.