Right, or the issue that came up in Kansas, Arizona, and other places, where business establishments don't want to serve gay couples, or at least not for gay events (i.e. photographer happily taking pictures of gay individuals (or maybe even duets), but refusing to participate in a same sex wedding as photographer).
But then it's too close a parallel to segregation laws, and it seems simple to say "we did this already" with the civil rights movement. Granted, it's generally a problem that self-corrects anyway. The photographer who boycotts certain weddings is just going to lose that business, and unless they're really discreet about it, they'll lose the business of straight allies as well.
I think all it takes, though, is a clear distinction of what constitutes a church operating as a religious institution with it's own freedom to define it's marriage ceremonies, or what have you, and it operating as a public space or charity or whatever. In the public operations, like Tedwards second example, I'd think they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Or if they want to call anything public and freely open to everyone, like their Sunday Services, those couldn't involve discrimination, though if they wanted to they could just make them private, invite-only churches (see how that works out).
But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'
Any statistical increase in the usage of the
emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.