From The Wall Street Journal:
By Nathan Koppel and Ashby Jones | Tuesday, October 1, 2013 As of 7:42 PM EDT
Photographers, Bakers Face Legal Challenges After Rejecting Jobs on Religious Grounds
As more states permit gay couples to marry or form civil unions, wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.
The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.
Similar cases are pending in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington, and some experts think the underlying legal question—whether free-speech and religious rights should allow exceptions to state antidiscrimination laws—could ultimately wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Religious-rights advocates argue that the Constitution affords people the right to abstain from a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. “It’s an evisceration of our freedom of association,” said John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage.
More at the link.
It seems that the evidence is mounting daily: the same-sex marriage advocates are not pushing just to be like everyone else, but are seeking to use same-sex marriage laws to force people to recognize their relationships as normal, and to have to treat them as they want to be treated. There’s nothing about privacy in this at all.
Nor about religious freedom. If homosexual marriage is favored by a (slight) majority of the population, as we are being told, then if one caterer or photographer does not wish to be involved in a same-sex marriage or commitment ceremony or whatever, there will be others who would be happy to take the business. Why, then, must homosexual couples insist on suing people who do not wish to participate, unless it is an attempt to use the force of the law to tel people that, by God, they will accept such ceremonies, regardless of their religious beliefs.
I have said it before: the push for same-sex marriage was never about denied rights or hospital visitation or inheritances. Were those the only issues, then the various civil unions or domestic partnerships laws would have sufficed to meet the need. Rather, the word marriage was the important thing, because it was required to push the meme that homosexual relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, just as normal, as heterosexual ones. Tolerance of diversity was never really the issue; compulsory acceptance always was.
It won’t be too much longer before the advocates of same sex marriage want to use the force of the law to compel churches which do something really radical like adhere to the Bible in which they profess to believe to perform same-sex weddings.