Marvin wrote:
I'm not so sure that discrimination of gays (such as refusing service to a gay marriage event) should be a protected act just because a person has a religious bias against the event. As another poster pointed out (I think Viviane) there is a State interest in commerce that deserves protection too. So we have competing interests at stake. We have, for example, 1) gays who want to marry, 2) christian extremists who do not want to provide services to a gay marriage event and we have 3) the State's interest in preserving and growing commerce. There may be other interests at stake too. But these come to mind first. Balancing these under the law is what society is grappling with right now.
Sounds reasonable, but it complicates things a bit. Keep it simple. Gays can form their own religion an marry there. Why do you want to force moral issues on religions. Some churches feel adamant about literal interpretations of certain books, let them be. It is not as if there's only one way of Christianity, Last time I checked the number was upwards of 30,000. I am sure there's plenty that cater to any taste of religiosity.
Religious people can be, and indeed often are a---holes. Let them be the only a---holes in the room. Why do we want gays or other "disenfranchised" people to be a---holes or play the victims too. We don't want to create a society of weakling who need to run to big brother every time someone sticks his tongue at you.
By the way, inserting the word commerce makes the argument too specious. That alone sounds like big brother's poorly supported excuse to tear down the fundamental right of freedom of religion. I don't buy it (pun intended)
