the photographer case and the bakery case were both in states with anti-discrimination laws where sexual orientation is a protected class. Just like a black bakery owner can't deny service to a white patron because they're white, a gay florist cannot deny service to a straight couple because they're straight. however, in most states, sexual orientation is not a protected class. In those states it is perfectly legal to post a sign in your business's window "No gays allowed".
the pizza place was in walkerton, Indiana, where it is perfectly ok to post a No Gays Allowed sign. The pizza place was barely making ends meet (how much pizza can you sell in a town of 2100 people?) before their story went viral. then all the religious right rubes gave them $800k (tax free by the way) to protect their freedom to say stupid things which was more than they could ever had hoped to make selling 4-5 pizzas a day, so they closed up shop and lived happily ever after.
yes, if you don't want to get gay married, then don't get gay married.
on the other hand, if you're a pharmacist but think it is wrong to dispense birth control to unmarried women, then perhaps you should find another occupation. the distinction is that to be a pharmacist requires a license from the state, so the state gets to set the rules.
the same with a business. a business is a legal entity created by the state as a way to protect the owners of the business from liability. your business gets sued, your personal assets are still safe. your product kills someone, the owners are not going to be charged with murder. but by incorporating, the business agrees to follow the rules of that state. If that state has anti-discrimination laws, then by incorporating you're agreeing to follow those rules.
You make some good points that I would like to address but again I find myself in a position that so often happens when engage in a serious discussion. Someone, in this case you, presents their views and supporting arguments. And because I believe that you are a sincere person, more interested maybe not so much in changing my view but seeking clarity and truth and not engaging in a pissing match, I take you seriously. So I take the trouble and considerable time to address your arguments, often point by point, but then find it has just been ignored and you just move on to another issue or argument.
You implies that the 14th Amendment was about superseding State law. It was created follow Reconstruction guaranteeing Blacks equal rights. A war was already fought and won guaranteeing equal rights to everybody, specifically Blacks. The issue was, are Blacks equal.
But more importantly and pertinent to the issue at hand, is the reasons you gave why government, and presumably society, doesn't recognize other forms of marriage such a polygamy, siblings marrying... The implication being that government has a right to determine whether people can marry based on the predicted health of their children (though I've given examples where a couple is guaranteed not to have children) or whether a spouse or child may be neglected or abused.
With all due respect, not only is this simply not true I suspect you just made that up as it reflects your own personal beliefs.
You did address my last retort regarding the rights of those whose religion compels them to resist all attempts for supporting gay marriage as well as the gay lifestyle in general. And, again, just to be precise, I don't mean preventing gays from living their lives but being forced to support it.
But I would like you to address my previous rebuttals, especially your stated reason why, now that we have redefined marriage, that other forms such as polygamy, siblings, two straight roommates..., should not be allowed.
