Please let your imagination run wild with how our nation would be if the public’s opinion on matters was the last word on matters of social changes.

Several specific Federal laws like the Civil Rights Act demands that a private business serve everyone in the public. Businesses for the public are considered a restaurant, movie theater, bowling alley or dance hall. Those businesses, although private cannot discriminate based on religion, race, gender, national origin or age. Other Federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities or ADA also demand private business accommodate people with disabilities. These are laws defined to protect the public against discrimination.

There are no laws to protect specifically couples in regarding to business accommodation. So a dance hall, or photographer can decline any potential client so long as it’s not based on something covered in those Federal laws I quoted above. Now in certain States, there are very strong anti-discrimination laws that include sexual-orientation in respect to employment, public accommodation and housing. So in those States, if a private business refuses a couple based on their sexual orientation they could face a violation. However, these laws do not specifically protect same-sex couples; rather, they protect all homosexuals. Those laws exists already regardless of marriage equality.

The bottom line, if you are a wedding photographer or owner of a reception hall, you better get a clue and realize that same-sex couples might come to spend money at your place of business. If you are Christian wedding florist but you have a Hindu couple approach you to do their wedding, you cannot escort them out the door based on their religion or culture. This might sound pretty harsh but it is a reality of society and doing business in a public arena. I say a solution can to become a photographer who only works on referrals privately. Basically you would take referrals from existing Christians and you probably will never face getting a Hindu or Atheist couple before your place of business. Again, I am not sure why a Christian Photographer must wear their religion on their sleeve when taking a client. If we all acted like this at our place of business tomorrow, would you ban working with Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and Pagans?

You cannot work in a public arena and expect to discriminate, period. Turn your business into a members only private club if that is what you want to do.

However, as the author put it, motives don’t matter in elections. But, does that really make elections just?

It is the duty of the courts to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. It has been well-known since the foundation of democracy that the system is not without flaws, and its defenders cite its departure from tyranny of an individual over his/her subjects. But democracy is far too glorified in that respect, which, I fear, has led to the author’s dismissive tone towards the idea that what is right is more important and more just than what is popular.

All who are aware of demoratic tyranny have an obligation to counter it. This includes the courts.

As to some of my fellow bloggers, who express another side of the Yes on 8 argument. I see only two possibilities as to the root of the belief that No on 8 is a repression of Judeo-Christian theology.

One is wrong and the other is arrogant and riddled with logical fallacies.

Many believe that priests, pastors, etc. will be forced to wed gay couples. This is wrong. Leaders of the gay movement agree that this is not their goal, and expecting such acceptance of gay marriage from many organized religions would be unfair.

The other possibility for the root of the perceived stifling of religious values must come from the belief that it is just for theology to dictate what is right and wrong in society. This is arrogant. It asserts that it is fair for Judeo-Christian views to dictate the stripping of rights from gays, and any attempt at keeping this stripping of rights from happening is an unfair imposition upon the religious community. This is a laughably hypocritical argument, as it is ignorant of the fact that the theological assertions impose upon gays.

Theological belief does not give a person the right to dictate what is right and wrong, or at least, it doesn’t give him/her the right to assert that dictation upon others.

And as to the belief that pro-gay marriage activists are anti-religion, it can only be asserted in response that religion threw the first punch in that department, with thousands of years of texts aimed at the destruction of the homosexual lifestyle. Gays are forced to create their own religious sects, because they are not accepted by major religions.

However, I have seen no evidence of such “anti-religious” bias in the first place. The gay community, as is common among minorities, is very accepting of others’ beliefs. And, at least, the gay community has no widely accepted and intensely followed texts that spit upon the religious lifestyle.