- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,805
- Reaction score
- 12,128
- Location
- Oregon's High Desert
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But according to your interpretation of the 1st Amendment if someone says some belief or practice is their sincere religious belief the law can't stop them from inflcting this on other people in the public market place.That you do not “get it” is irrelevant. Yes, maybe to you this isn’t sensible, but that is simply not a rebuke or refutation of the legal arguments or the religious beliefs.
Ms Smith wants, according to the text of the suit, not only refusal of wedding site creation to gays but she also wants to explain publicly, on her web site, why gay marriage is not acceptable to her and her God.
(from the suit before the SC)
71. Another purpose of 303 Creative is to develop and design unique visual and textual expression that promotes, celebrates, and conveys messages that promote aspects of Ms. Smith’s Christian faith.
79. By creating wedding websites, Ms. Smith and 303 Creative will collaborate with prospective brides and grooms in order to use their unique stories as source material to express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting God’s design for marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.
80. The collaboration between Plaintiffs and their clients who desire custom wedding websites will also allow Plaintiffs to strengthen and encourage marriages by sharing biblical truths with their clients as they commit to lifelong unity and devotion as man and wife.
Can she put a curse on gays because she sincerely believes that gay marriage is wrong? Can she advocate, on her website for the stoning deaths of gays who are married? Can she buy paid advertising on the radio and TV saying gays should be stoned to death. Can she advocate publicly for the deaths of non-Christians. Where does it end?