I haven't bothered to read any of them, but the drift I get is that their intent is to provide some legal protection for, e.g., a business owner who might refuse to provide a product or service for a "gay wedding". The problem I have with that is I don't see why the right of refusal of a nonreligious owner should be any less protected. I suspect the divide between me and some religious people centers on the operating definition of "religion": they see it as a set of rules and regs, whereas I, taking my cue from James 1:27, see it as doing the right thing. Why, then, am I not entitled to the same level of protection merely for failing to cite some codified religious tenet? BTW, there are plenty of threads where debate over the legitimacy of "gay marriage" is appropriate. This is not one of them.
IMO, yes. But, there is a difference between discriminating a person as apposed to a ceremony. I'm apposed to serving a ceremony that is an abomination of my religion. I have no problem serving gays when it does not reflect an abomination. Are you wanting to discriminate a ceremony or a person? Again, I believe you have the right either way, I'm just asking which you are referring.
As I stated earlier I believe that any business owner has the right to not do business with anyone he doesn't wish do business with for any reason. On the other hand no one who doesn't own a business should forced to buy from any specific business.
The difference being that while discrimination against a person has meaning, discrimination against a ceremony does not, since a ceremony can't get its feelings hurt or file a lawsuit.
Well, as we have seen, this is not true. The ceremony involves people committing an abomination. Which, I could careless if their feelings are hurt or they feel deprived.
Actually, I'm talking about the example of the baker who would not make a gay wedding cake, which is part of a ceremony. The baker was sued.
