[smirksirlot]

Just because your religion says so doesn't mean I have to follow it. I'm not trying to make you change your religion - you can live the way you want - but that is not the way I want.

The appropriate middle ground is just that. You can be as religious as you want, tell me that I live in sin etc., but you don't get to force me to not be with the person I love. Similarly, I don't get to force legislation to make everyone atheist.

[xupybd]

I think you miss the point. I am trying to get a discussion on where we draw the line on how we assert our political beliefs in everyday life.

For instance there has been talk here on the freedom of association. I support that to a degree. But not to the degree where I would want society to allow a shop keeper to only serve straight white males. But I would want a society that allows a church/temple/(name your religious building) to discriminate on not marrying people from outside of that faith.

This article got me thinking why have I drawn these lines. And wanted to open a discussion on how we decide when is it okay to limit someone's freedoms. I think the majority are saying lets try to prevent this guys ability to work for this company. Because he wants to limit who can marry who. But why is one okay and not the other? I'm not trying to take either side I'm just trying to ask why.