:2 cents:

i'm surprised you have this view. the issue isn't about her really and has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the constitution.

and the Supreme Court was not unanimous, at all, in fact it was a 5-4 decision, here are some dissenting opinions from the justices:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights. Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.

Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment. Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest, preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

More generally, Roberts analyzed the history of marriage, which he claimed had always consisted of a "universal definition," "the union of a man and a woman" with the intended purpose of successful childrearing. Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history. He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.

Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended. According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed. Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted. Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today. He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."
Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf


Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."

Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint." Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement," such as a marriage license.

According to Thomas, the majority's holding also subverts the political process and threatens religious liberty. Lastly, Thomas took issue with the majority's view that marriage advances the dignity of same-sex couples. In his view, government is not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a natural right that is innate within every person, a right that cannot be taken away even through slavery.


Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.

Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment. Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools," leading to "bitter and lasting wounds." Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."

I thought dildoes :d

Totally agree, they are fucking gutless, for allowing her to carry on this way. Not Only that, she also hired her son and he's doing the same thing:321GFY

OK so whats the difference then between the white christian lady refusing to sign for the gay marriage and this one

Muslim Flight Attendant Says She'''s Suspended For Not Serving Alcohol


She is refusing to server alcohol because of religion.

The difference is at the end the white lady loses her job and may do some jail time.

The other one will get a big Im sorry and 10 million dollars because she was forced to do something she had already been doing before.

The difference is that the Muslim woman should be fired. She has no business as a flight attendant if she can't do her job. Simple.

The "white Christian lady" is a public official. Her job is actually affecting the lives of people who have waited a long time to get married.

The people "against" gays getting married need to step back and think about what they are doing.
Getting married is one of the biggest decisions you make in your whole life. And to tell certain people that they can't get married to the person they love is bullshit.

It's just pure out mean-spirited. There isn't any "religion" in that kind of thinking. It's just homophobic people wanting to hurt gay people. And they try to find a bible quote to back it up.

Typical bullshit that has been done over and over by people throughout history. Using bible quotes has caused wars, death, etc.

How about this thought: Live and let live.

This is a "separation of Church and State" issue if there ever was one.

It may end up in the long run being worth it for the state to eat the cost of separating her from her job.

Not all Christians support her, btw.

it's very much not a separation of church and state issue. the issue here isn't a matter of her motivation just like a speeding ticket isn't a matter of why you were speeding.

this is an interpretation of the 14th amendment issue.