It was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in your lifetime, and some used the bible to justify that. Do you agree with them?
Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. You must mean the same way a Christian church considered marrying black people would be a wedding of abomination.
I'm okay with it. If the church or whatever isn't going to do it willingly of their own accord (like a free market business transaction should ), I don't want it. Who the hell wants to get married where they are not wanted, them's some STUPID people right there.
Doesn't matter if you're with it or not. Free market or not. It's not ok for businesses religious or not, to break the law. It's just GAY to think it's ok.
Quite simply the law is wrong. Both the business owner and consumer should have the freedom without obligation of providing services to or from each other in MUTUAL agreement.
I don't know one way or the other if the bible even mentions interracial marriage. ALTHOUGH a former friend of mine from many years ago was a bit of an amateur bible "scholar" of sorts. For whatever reason, I remember him mentioning he had researched the issue [in the Bible] and had concluded there was nothing written to prohibit it. Personally: 1)I don't think there should be such laws but mostly because I don't think the state has much if any business being involved with marriage. 2)If a black and white have no intentions of having children, I don't care what they do including getting married. 3)If an interracial couple intends to have children I think it would be prudent for them to objectively consider the possible outcome. Think of the child for Christs sake. Some interracial children (through no fault of their own of course) aren't particularly attractive and often suffer from a certain amount of bias. It has always been this way and always will. At least until human nature changes anyway.
ditto. P&R has become infested with a crowd of morons who constantly try to drag every thread into the gutter they live in. Luckily, they can be silneced very effectively, if only the rest of you would stop quoting their posts.
Total nonsense. The church was not ordered to perform the wedding, just to rent out the facility. As diminished as religious liberty has become under obama, I dare say courts are not yet dictating what churches have to do in religious ceremonies. This case was of course wrongly decided. It forced the church to implicitly endorse something it found religiously abhorent. The judge acted like it was analogous to renting out an apartment or hotel room. It wasn't. This was a church facility, and they should have been able to decide the purposes it would be used for. If a group of pagans wanted to use it for an orgy celebrating the goddess gaia, would that have been legally required too? What about if a group of skinheads wanted to stage a conference to promote racism? They have First Amendment rights, don't they?