It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't disagree, but I am aware the very distinct possibility, if not probability, that there will occur changing sentiments and interpretations of laws and first amendment protections. While they were unsuccessful we observed certain trends arising in Idaho and Houston, TX. Then the dissenting opinions of SCOTUS express great concern for the future of religious liberties on several fronts, all stemming from the ruling today. How foolish would it be to completely disregard these things?
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Churches are not public accommodations. The government cannot force churches to conduct marriage ceremonies. Besides, who would want have a ceremony officiated by an unwilling participant?
originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: xuenchen
Well, congratulations to Democrats. They finally managed to beat a concept that they themselves helped propel in the 90s with a heavily bipartisan bill called DOMA. At least we've relearned the nature of political flip-flop. Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and so on and so forth...
Have fun America. Let's see how long before churches get the pressure to conduct same sex marriage.
That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher
Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?