[messierhunter]

Actually, I think you have this one wrong.

Right, so the blurb from that story I posted was just made up then? Good to know...

When was the last time you heard of a Catholic church forced to perform, say, a Buddhist wedding?

When was the last time you heard of a buddhist who was itching to get married in a catholic cathedral?

Religion is a protected class, but churches aren't forced to accommodate all other religions.

Why would they ever NEED to accommodate another religion? Anyone requesting accommodation from a separate religion should be found to be "insincere" about their own religion. Therefore, anyone attempting to use religious protection on another religion is by definition no longer protected. With homosexuality it's another matter entirely. Deny it all you want, lawsuits like the one I posted above are already happening and they're being won by the homosexual movement.

[mngran2]

The question in the New Jersey case you refer to is not whether a church has to allow or perform gay weddings, the question is whether property owned by a Methodist-affiliated organization was in fact commercial property or religious property. The beach-side pavilion that the gays wanted to marry in was rented out for profit for concerts, performances, as well as weddings. The court has been asked to decide whether this was a commercial premises, in which case the state’s anti-discrimination laws apply, or whether it is a religious premises, in which case the church is free to allow or disallow whatever they want. As well, there appears to be some evidence that the organization voluntarily ceded the property (or part of it) to county in 1908 for use as public land, thus avoiding taxation. If it’s public land, then, again, the state’s non-discrimination laws apply. As far as I can find out, the trial hasn’t happened yet.

So it’s not as simple as you seem to imply in your post.