[Lurking Libertarian]

And you are not listening. I said, a church CANNOT turn down a couple to be married, based on skin color, and I daresay that said church would be sued and regulated into oblivion if they did.

I'll bet you $1,000.00 you cannot find a case where a church in the U.S. was successfully sued for refusing to perform a wedding where the refusal was based on the church's religious beliefs.

[dware]

I'll bet you $1,000.00 you cannot find a case where a church in the U.S. was successfully sued for refusing to perform a wedding where the refusal was based on the church's religious beliefs.

The examples you cited are correct:

no one in the US has ever successfully sued a Catholic church for not performing a wedding where one of the spouses is divorced

But the divorced are not a protected class

no one has ever sued an Orthodox Rabbi for not performing an interfaith wedding

Interfaith relationships are not protected classes.

Both of your examples, as your most recent statement (you cannot find a case where a church in the U.S. was successfully sued for refusing to perform a wedding where the refusal was based on the church's religious beliefs) are correct. HOWEVER:

Race / skin color = protected class, and now

Deviant sexual behavior = protected class

Thus far, I've not heard of any church that has turned someone away due to skin color. If they were to do so, they WOULD be sued and regulated into oblivion. Same now, with deviant marriage.

In plain words, you are entirely missing the point.

[CityCenter]

Not to mention where the Obama administration has tried such things, even the libs on the court have slapped him down. One case being brought over hiring practices in the private, religious school.