So you think gay's fight to legalizing gay marriage was about being accepted by society? Please explain how being able to get a marriage license would make them more accepted."stop promoting it"?
LOL
Normal is a subjective term. What you consider normal may be very different than what I consider normal and would certainly be different from those living in a homeless camp, refugee center, in a South Chicago neighborhood ruled by gangs, Atherton, Ca. where the average household income is 10 times the national average, or Salinas, Ca. where the population is 78% Hispanic.
Nobody is whining DUMBASS ...
I already did. I gave examples of others who had to choose between work and their religion and their rights were not violated. You simply lack the ability to understand. That's on you, nobody else. I can live with that.
www.insurancejournal.com
In Colonial Times most marriages were not religions ceremonies. Church weddings as such were rare. A minister was often asked to preform a ceremony in the house of the bride or groom. In poorer families often the father of the bride might give away his daughter in a family ceremony. Many of the marriages were arrange by the parents of the bride. The bride might be taken to the dwelling of the husband. Handshakes and hugs were exchanged, maybe a celebratory drink and possibly a dowry was paid and that was often the marriage ceremony. In North Carolina, agreement between the families was made and the marriage was announced 3 times to make it legal. Most couples did not bother with marriage licenses because of cost. Common law marriages were typical. Pregnant brides were not uncommon. The marriage was about property and reproduction.
Miss the **** Off part of my comment?
Dumbass ...I already did. I gave examples of others who had to choose between work and their religion and their rights were not violated. You simply lack the ability to understand. That's on you, nobody else. I can live with that.
Here's another example...
Supreme Court Nixes Religious Bias Claim for Walgreens Denying Saturdays-Off Request
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who askedThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who asked not to work on Saturdays for religious reasons as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.The justices declined to review a lower court ruling in Darrell Patterson’s religious discrimination lawsuit that concluded that his demand to never work on Saturday, observed as the Sabbath by Seventh-day Adventists, placed an undue hardship on Walgreens.
... here's where you ***** & moan some more.
No, I got that. I just don't give a shit. Don't like it? TFB.
Not my problem you're too ignorant to comprehend the relevance. You trying to blindly dismiss it is a fail on your part. I have no problem with that.
That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."
"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."
Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"
Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.www.foxnews.com
Show me where the federal government has any authority over any marriages at all.
Yup...Gender/Race have no Constitutional Ban..nor approval. That which is not expressly forbidden is allowed. That's freedom. It's the religious nutz that **** it all up~
I have to agree with that.
The word marriage does not necessarily imply any religious trappings. And a cake certainly doesn't.
I don't think atheists are too concerned with being blessed by God. They are too busy trying to convince themselves that they ARE God.
I'm not an atheist.
