Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields
Church offer their buildings for various activities to people outside of their church. From weddings to funerals etc ...
someone could easily argue that it is open to the public for use and gay should be allowed to marry.
these aren't businesses but churches.
the other justices did not rule it out of context for the very thing you said to happen happen.
Notre Dame is very much a religious school yet could lose it's status for exercising a 1st amendment right.
no these militant advocates do not just march with their wallets they bring the courts into it and force their way.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter"
i thought their job was to interpret what was constitutional or not constitutional - not interpret what congress meant and adjust the ruling accordingly.
i don't want to derail this thread, i made a similar comment in the thread about the king/burwell ruling and we can take it up over there...
for the gay marriage one, i thought it should have been a no-brainer, 9-0, obviously constitutional for same sex couples to be entitled to marriage licenses from the state
and to the slippery slopers out there - go ahead and petition the court for your ability to marry your brother or your dog or your big screen tv. then we can have that debate. theres a reason that the scope of this argument has been limited to man/man & woman/woman - because no one else is demanding the right to marry a pet.
"We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
"I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker
the court just slammed the door on the 1st amendment that protects peoples religious freedoms and practices.
no they would be citing the majority ruling. as the majority ruling did not put freedom of religion in their majority writing.
You can see why, today, you saying exactly the same thing, is not compelling.