I.
It think you miss the point that the only free choice you have is to live by the rules of society/government or be penalized. Since the OP is about discriminating against a couple because of what your religion dictates then "free choice" would cover the ability to discriminate.
II. In regard to your last paragraph....the point of progress is to move forward even when at times it may seem you need to stand still and figure it all out perfectly before implementation. I can tell you that it rarely works that way. People get brain lock and freeze trying to come to a 100% consensus. Nothing would ever get done. You take the best course of action, evaluate the results, tweak the solution and continue to do this in a never ending cycle. This is a process not the completed package.
I. Yes, however that is the very problem -- when people do not agree or believe in the same "rules" in order not to face consequences they both "penalize each other"
(I don't think "penalized" is the only option, but responsibility for correction and restitution if you want to consider that a penalty; I just see it as a natural process to correct wrongs)
if we understood and respected religious beliefs equally, either for or against gay marriage, then we could start working out a plan toward resolution, from equal footing.
So A, it is ALSO natural law or Constitutional law to respect people's religious beliefs;
we could not reach a resolution by never including the person as an equal to begin with.
If you ask any experienced mediator, they will tell you the conflict resolution has to start with neutral ground. If you are going into it already presupposing the other is wrong and needs to be "penalized", of course you are going to deadlock.
That IS part of "natural law" or natural rules of society and how people function.
We cannot solve problems while we feel we are being attacked and excluded
and focus on defending our right to exist. One side gets that for themselves,
but they don't see the other feels equally as disenfranchised, so they stay stuck in conflict.
II. Regarding nothing would get done
I disagree; it would compel a higher standard on resolving conflicts where govt is neutral, people resolve their issues first, and then write laws or reform govt to reflect that plan.
it would compel BETTER leaders who are more able to represent "all people equally"
in shaping and correcting public policy.
This is like saying:
If we required planes to be piloted correctly, or we required doctors to be fully trained and licensed to be accurate in their work, we'd have a shortage and wouldn't meet the need.
Yes there is a high stress level on pilots and doctors because the demands are greater.
But we need it to be that way
or we'd have a bunch of dangerous incompetent practices going on,
making more messes.
And that's what we have now with lawyers and govt.
Competent enough to know the laws to get into conflicts and win by bullying
or excluding the other.
But where are the mediators, legislators, and leaders who can unify people on common solutions and write good laws that people support uniformly?
Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service as an example
of laws written and passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress:
ethics-commission.net
Why can't we make that the standard?
then force all people to solve problems at the local level where they are EQUAL,
and only reserve the state and federal levels for policies that
"all people agree on" on THAT level before it is enforced as public.
Wouldn't that reward the good pilots and good doctors
who know how to operate accurately and effectively?
Wouldn't that create jobs paying mediators and law teams
TO SOLVE PROBLEMS not just getting paid to bully in Courts and Congress.
Equal rights are not like a sport, a wrestling match where
you enjoy the soap opera drama of watching two foes fight it out.
These are people's rights, lives, freedom and RELATIONSHIPS on the line.
Don't we owe it to each other to stand for solutions that
respect and represent us EQUALLY? Isn't that what the
First and Fourteenth Amendments are supposed to be about?
Why not challenge ourselves and our govt to live up to our noble standards:
Equal Justice Under Law
Not just "one side" getting their way who had more money, better lawyers,
a judge who sympathized, or majority rule from more members of their party voting.
Equal Justice for ALL
How can we live up to that if we keep compromising with a lower standard?
Why not elect and hire people who can come closer to truly equal inclusion.
