[Sherman Logan]

The problem is that this boat sailed decades ago.

There were people in the 60s and 70s with sincere religious beliefs against interracial marriage. Some in my family. I did and do disagree with them, strongly, but I respect their right to believe as they choose.

Well, if any of those people owned a motel, they had to rent to interracial couples. Forced, and nobody cared, because they were just a bunch of racists. Which they most certainly were. That their racism was religiously based buttered no parsnips, then or now.

The gay thing is simply an extension of that. Once we added sexual orientation to the magic list of those nobody was allowed to discriminate against, the game was over.

People who rent facilities and such are just SOL on this issue. Cake decorators, photographers and such still have a chance to bail out. Still based on 1A, but on freedom of speech, not religion.

Freedom of speech requires the freedom not to speak. Nobody should be forced to utter speech with which he disagrees.

IMO

[rawcatslyentist]

I see it as a 4th amendment violation also.

Either we OWN our property or businesses or the GOVT does!

[SamuraiScot]

Once we added sexual orientation to the magic list of those nobody was allowed to discriminate against, the game was over.

Especially in times of turbulence, I don't think we can assume that trends of the past will continue indefinitely. They continue only in the presence of the incentives that permitted them. Things veer away from intolerant "tolerance" regularly all over the world—including in ways that are bad.

No fears of futility should dissuade anyone from taking steps to establish justice. Those fears, like the poor, we have always with us. The very fact of forcing a discussion from principle changes the atmosphere to some degree, with effects in places we don't know. And if we succeed, all the better.

[Ohioan]

The idea that Conservatives have to lick their wounds, but accept previous defeats as irreversible, is a logical fallacy. There is freedom of speech, freedom of religion & freedom to associate--all basic, all challenged by the Left.

I understand that there is a strong argument for an exception in the instance of a motel--that exception goes back to English common law, in an era, long ago, when refusal at the country inn might be an serious problem for a traveler; but beyond that exception, the so-called "Civil Rights" restrictions on freedom of choice are indefensible, if one wants to maintain the liberty envisioned by the framers of our original institutions. (For a more detailed exposition, see "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.)

[VinL]

With no disrespect, which religion held that a interracial couple could not marry?