NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
[MENTION=45917]KNB[/MENTION]
In the the Supreme Court Case, Van Orden v. Perry U.S. 677, 688 (2005) it ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol did not violate the Constitution. In it, Judge Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion that, "[We] find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."
Meaning, that our government cannot be a hostile force against religion of any sort, including but not limited to Christianity. The free exercise clause stops government from favoring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Perhaps if you had any idea the meaning of the First Amendment, you would understand that your beliefs are not the standard.
If the Court stops that, how can they favor a religious business owner's rights over a gay customer's rights?