So, as the majority of social media, etc (on my feed anyway) celebrates the Supreme Court's ruling today, there are obviously those who see things a bit differently. 

How do you feel about today's ruling? And, for my personal interest in this thread, how exactly do you see this issue as related to the first amendment's rights? I've already seen some outbreak stating that this is AGAINST the first amendment. My question is: "How?" Wouldn't creating a law favoring the ability to deny gay marriage be the thing that breaks the amendment's rights? This whole struggle was a legal matter. People wanted legal rights that were typically granted to man/woman couples. By denying that opportunity, I feel laws were being made in the name of a religious definition. 

Anyways, I suppose you have my view on the matter. How do you feel about this ruling and its legal/religious standing? 

I think it's about time America did this.

I see no reason why marriage between two sexes should be banned on a political level. It's simply forcing religious beliefs on an increasingly diverse and opinionated populace.

And besides, most states already legalized it. Almost if not all the others would have done the same even without Obergefell v. Hodges.

I'm incredibly happy about it! The fact that I may now marry if I end up living in the U.S. or if my country follows suit is an amazing feeling, I've always wanted to start a family! 

As Boxia put it nicely, the US government cannot push religious based decisions (this is precisely what the first amendment is about, religion and the government remaining separate) on its population, where a bunch of them aren't following the religion or agreeing with the decision.

Overall it's a fantastic thing, seeing how the United States has always prided itself in being the paragon of freedom and equality and it's awesome to see that its actions follow their beliefs!

NOW KEEP IN MIND, this is a victory, and a HUGE one, but there is SO MUCH MORE still to be done in the LGBT+ community, both in the US and outside.

So to all the LGBT+ people and allies on Vizzed, let's celebrate and keep fighting the good fight!

I think it's about time!

I was watching TV with my dad, sister, and grandparents yesterday. They were talking about how they got one of those escaped murderers, and we were all like, "nice," and then they were talking about how the Supreme Court ruled for same-sex marriage, and we were all like, "NIIICE!"

Haha, we were all really happy xD! It was a really special day, and I even took a screenshot of me video-chatting with my best friend about it to remember x3. None of us are LGBT (except for me, who miiight be, as I've been figuring myself out a lot more lately), but we sure are happy for everyone in the States who is! 

I'm still kind of amazed at how long it took, but congratulations to all you American LGBT people ! 

In my opinion, no one should ever have to face any boundaries concerning which sex they love . It's 2015. It's so funny to me that this is still what people are arguing about. There are a lot more important things we could be discussing, but lots of us are still playing this silly "I'm pissed off that you love _!" game. It doesn't matter. 

Some of my friends think differently about this than I do, and I am NOT ridiculing those who do, but I am just saying that there are limits to the ways you express your opinion. Feel free to voice it, but don't FORCE it.

Let and let live, everyone.

I state that marriage is, and always has been, between a man and a woman.  Trying to change the definition of marriage is like calling cows pigs.  You can change the name, but not the definition.  The definition is constant and unchanging.  That is why I am against this choice.  I am strongly for gay rights, and feel they deserve respect and love from everyone.  But I am against calling gay unions marriage.

I'll keep my views on gay marriage to myself, they'd do nothing beneficial here.

However, I am truly concerned that this will be a foothold for those attempting to force Christians to contribute to LGBT+ weddings. There have already been many legal cases where a gay couple has sued a Christian cake-maker or whatever because the Christian doesn't want to violate his beliefs. With gay marriage now legalized, I'm concerned that Christian bakers/musicians/photographers/etc. will now have no choice as to whether they're allowed to deny service to a gay couple (which is protected by the constitution, though that doesn't necessarily mean much these days).

And in response to the inevitable "but people should be supporting gay marriage, why would anyone not idiotic deny them service? Those who would deny service are homophobic, it's fine to require them to provide services"...

My uncle is a well-known pianist. People have called him from around the US to get him to play for their weddings. He's not homophobic in the least, but he does stand firm on his Christian beliefs. If he's forced to show open support for gay marriage by playing at a gay wedding, I have little doubt he'll start exploring new career options.

mrfe : Don't worry. Churches can still refuse hosting gay weddings.
This change allows the churches that wanted to support LGBT+ couples to now do so.

If anything, you'd have to force gay couples to get married in a anti-LGBT+ church.

*

My own view on the new amendment is two-sided, so don't read if you want to celebrate:

It is a step in the right direction, but it was also strategic retreat from the rising tide of awareness and action against homophobia and LGBT+ issues in america.

Whether that this will actually help LGBT+ communities is doubtful, since a small percent of same-gender couples can afford to get married, let alone coming out at all.

On3On : Not to be rude, but I wasn't specifically referring to churches. There have been many issues where gay couples have sued Christian businessmen/women who have refused service for their weddings. The rulings on the cases have been mixed, hence my concern that this may be a foothold.

mrfe : I don't feel you're being rude here at all..
I wasn't too specific either, I think its fairly self-explanitory that the wedding-cake cases are beyond the scope of the recent amendment.

Not to mention, the results of these cases have always been circumstancial.
It depends on how good a lawyer you have, and who the judge favors..

Same stuff happens for slightly different reasons.
It's nothing new.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

On3On : Fantastic point actually, the VERY LAST thing the LGBT+ community wants is that this is taken as some sort of appeasement. I assure you that there are several people who will now say "Oh they can get married, what do they want now? They've got it done what are they even rallying for" which is absolutely missing the point that, say, there are still several states without discrimination laws and transgender people continue to be marginalized and barred from access to means to transition. 

Let's not, however, forget to celebrate or downplay the news, it's pride season after all!

mrfe : Denying service to someone on the sole basis of their sexual orientation is homophobic. If I were to start a religion that said that interracial marriages shouldn't happen (hmm it looks like some religious folk have argued that in the past as well, wonder who?) and refused to cater to interracial weddings I'd not only be disgustingly racist, but my religion would hold racist beliefs that promote discrimination and oppression. I respect Christianity, but not any interpretation of it where any group is regarded and treated as second class as an act of "piety". When did Jesus say, "the best way to show your loyalty to me is by condemning the actions of your neighbor"? NEVER

Besides isn't that blatant act of discrimination and judgement completely and utterly against the phrase "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Matthew 7: 1-5) Which is essentially Jesus telling you that it's not your duty to judge for that is his own. You should be more concerned about that time that you lied or back-talked to your parents rather than who your neighbor loves or marries. Here's a couple more verses virtually explicit about forbidding Christians from judging and condemning anyone. Why don't you tell your uncle that his decision to make judgement is absolutely unchristian.

How many atheist photographers and caterers and musicians have contributed in Christian weddings, even though they don't personally believe in them or would have one themselves? Wouldn't people get immensely angry if they refused service to Christian couples based on their own belief? Or a gay business owner kicking out or refusing to serve Christian couples? This is called a double standard, you'd hate it if done to you (Even if based on personal belief) but you advocate your group's right to discriminate people. Shame on you.

Myelin : First of all, we must have COMPLETELY different definitions of homophobic. I'm referring to intoleration, to which everyone is allowed their own opinion, whereas you seem to be referring to anything that doesn't benefit homosexuals.

My uncle is 100% within his rights to refuse service to anyone (gay, straight, atheist, Christian) just because he wants to. My point is that Christians have been forced to either face a large fine or participate in weddings that contradict their beliefs. If he wants to refuse service based upon his beliefs, the constitution protects his right to do that. Your definition of right and wrong are irrelevant legally.

However, that's not really how the US is working these days. The belief that gay marriage should be 100% accommodated has resulted in judges (not all judges, but some) ruling that Christians have to violate their beliefs to accommodate gay weddings.

Don't misunderstand me. I have nothing against gay people, I simply don't agree with some of their decisions.

I work at Taco Bell, and the stores Assistant GM is lesbian. She also happens to be a friend, despite the fact that I don't support her being lesbian.

In fact, the verses you mention support the friendship I have with the stores AGM. It's not my place to judge her for her beliefs, but I certainly don't have to agree with them. She's a friend, but (if I ever went into photography) I shouldn't have to take pictures at her wedding. I could choose to, but I shouldn't have to.

Not-judging and accommodating are two entirely different things. I can say no, without hating someone. Imagine that!

Let me be clear. I will never, and have never (intentionally), viewed a gay person as 'lesser' than myself. "Love the sinner, not the sin" is a motto I live by, and it's no less applicable here.

Also, in that last paragraph, you're assuming something with NO knowledge on how I live my life. If I go to a photographer for my wedding eventually, and they say 'sorry, you support traditional marriage, I can't be a part of that belief', there's really no way I'd do anything. I'd be frustrated, sure, but they're legally allowed to deny me service. I certainly wouldn't be suing for hate crimes.

supernerd117 : I can respect that, and appreciate the response. Although not explicitly stated in my first post, my main goal here was to gather the views of those opposed to any part(s) of the ruling by the supreme court. It's just not very satisfying unless you really understand everyone's' perspectives, you know? 

mrfe : From my perspective (though I haven't exactly read what was passed), all that was agreed upon was it would be unconstitutional to deny equal rights to gay married couples based on a religious definition, as that would create a law favoring an establishment of religion. I will fully agree with you that this should in no way force any person or institution to do something that would disregard their religious beliefs. People make accommodations for religious practices all the time. Like on3on said, sometimes a lawsuit like that has to do with how the judge feels, which is another matter entirely. But in my opinion, that'd be a pretty bogus case for your uncle, or anyone, to lose. 
I also see how you're concerned with the slippery slope type argument but on the other hand with how long this took to pass, I'd also say anything further would take just as long to go through, if it did at all. Fine lines have to be made eventually and religious rights should always be preserved. 

Myelin : First off, comparing homophobic people with racists is kind of apples and oranges, in my opinion ( it could very well even serve its own thread on this site, so we'll steer clear of that for now). The tone of your argument is rather unfavorable and while you're telling mrfe not to judge others, you're attacking christians. Personally, I feel you can find countless contradictions in any religion, but its interpretation is up to whoever is practicing that belief (and I know very little about most religions so that's also my way of neglecting those quotes in your post). mrfe expressed concerns about people being forced to do things against what they believe, it's not up to you to tell him what it is he believes, that far beyond the point of what we're trying to accomplish in this thread. Besides, businesses have always held the right to only accept customers they see fit, it's their prerogative. 

Anyways, I appreciate all the responses so far. If I may pose a specific question, how do those (not necessarily against, but not all for the ruling) who oppose the ruling feel about how the first amendment was considered in this case? I mainly ask since I read an article where some were absolutely convinced the first amendment was violated, and that's the main part of the opposition I don't understand. To me, the amendment was upheld with the decision, as I've mentioned before. All thoughts welcome, long as we keep it civil. 

mrfe :  Before I even mention how misguided you are in terms of the law, did you REALLY just use the "but I have a gay friend" defense? The shame you should feel over even trying to use that is beyond enormous.

Myelin : I did, because it shows I'm not ignorant when it comes to how LGBT+ people feel. I hear a lot about it, actually, hence why I mentioned my friendship with her. I don't believe I'm a victim here, I'm explaining what I believe. The difference between us is that you're seeking to undermine my opinion with emotion-driven beliefs, whereas I'm simply supporting my opinions.

My uncle isn't a bus stop, nor is he a convention center. He's a musician, and owns his own business at that. He plays piano at weddings, he doesn't own the building. He's entitled to refuse service if he so chooses.

Also, he's not targeting anyone. The people he's 'singling out' are simply those who are participating in events that he doesn't agree with. Is it right to force a Muslim woman who adheres strictly to Sharia Law to take off her hijab? No, of course not. It goes against her beliefs. The US is bending over backwards to accommodate Sharia Law, at least in parts. Why then, if we're supporting Sharia Law, are Christians supposed to be required to violate their own beliefs?

Sure, it targets a group. Deporting illegal immigrants is also targeting a group. The fact that it targets a group doesn't make it wrong, it's how and why they go about it that matters.

Also, let me be perfectly clear. Through the course of this conversation, I've never once attacked the idea of an LGBT+ marriage. As I said in my first post, my feelings on the matter would only serve to be counter-productive to the point I was trying to make. Let me quote myself.

"I'll keep my views on gay marriage to myself, they'd do nothing beneficial here.

However, I am truly concerned that this will be a foothold for those attempting to force Christians to contribute to LGBT+ weddings."

As I said, I merely posted here to express concerns that Christians (like my uncle) would be forced to participate in LGBT+ weddings. That's literally all I was trying to point out. Somehow, you've managed to take it from there, and end up with me somehow being homophobic despite never really sharing my view on homosexuality itself. You're assuming you know me, that you know how I think, because I'm a Christian. We've found the double-standard you referred to.

Also, to further prove that double-standard, the idea of forcing Christians to violate their beliefs is discriminatory as well. You're saying that, for the good of LGBT+ marriages everywhere, I must disregard my beliefs and support their unions. I must support a lifestyle opposite my own.

No, I'm not saying LGBT+ people should receive lesser treatment. I'm saying that I choose not to participate in their unions, nothing more, as I'm staying on-topic of my original post. That's not lesser treatment, that's my refusal. Heck, you could say I'm getting the short end of the deal. They can always find another photographer/pianist/baker, but I can't always find another paycheck.

mrfe :  Ok let's see, service providers that are open to the public (i.e. That do not require membership like private clubs or some churches) are considered public accommodations. That is, if your uncle operates like a business and  opens his services to be accessed by the public, it counts as public accommodations. If not, he can't and won't be sued, but is still being discriminatory.

Myelin : Just saying... Religion IS part of equality. You're implying that religion is some conspiracy, or some extremist group like ISIS, and I disagree with this. 
Religion is something people have the right to choose for, and it's just like sexuality. It's a part of who you are. It's part of your identity.

Okay, you feel like mrfe is being homophobic for having an opinion that religious people can deny stuff that goes against their belief/religion, right?
What would you say about an gay being forced to marry a straight? "No, that person has the right to deny!" 

Oh..? See?

There is no need for discrimination when said religion has the capacity to support LGBT+ groups, and has had since the beginning. The knowledge is out there.

Religion is an important personal belief, but discrimination is against another living human being is impersonal and far beyond appropriate boundaries, and in this context, against a group of people that are already a target of discrimination for over half a century in america alone.

I respect all concerns for individual beliefs, and I hope this helps relieve some of those concerns.

danielbelitch : I'm glad you made this thread.  It gave me a place to voice my views.  I wish more people would agree with it, though.  I don't hate gays.  I just wish more people would listen to reason and stop fighting.  Sadly, that means that we must all unite behind a common banner, something I know many people will not do.  I will not stand behind gay marriage, and I know many gays will not become straight, although it is my goal to try to convince them to.

I know what it's like to be gay, to an extent.  I have dealt with sex addiction for a good portion of my life, and have felt same-sex attraction because of it.  And I can firmly say that the choice to be gay is not worth it.  I assert that it is a choice.  Same-sex attraction is not a choice, but the choice to act on such attraction is.  And although I have not acted on it with someone else, I have done it myself, and I totally regret it.  It limited my ability to choose and made me unhappy.

I want to be free and happy.  I want to raise a family.  And I want to fall in love, true love that isn't based on pleasure but mutual respect and desire to grow together.  Doing this will be a difficult challenge, but I know it will be worth it.

Eh, what else is new?

The Supreme court stepping outside it's boundaries? Meh. I'm somewhat upset because this sort of just came out of nowhere, I'm not even connected to the news or politics anymore, cause I know how dumb our government is.

And it doesn't matter how smart you or I am. We can't change it. Our country has been going downhill for almost the last 200 years. So I don't care. I don't keep up, I just kindof hear things off and on.

Bleh.

Then this happens. What can I say really?

Homosexuality we shouldn't be encouraging in the first place, cause the human body isn't built for it. It's a mental disorder, and we shouldn't recognize these actions under legal guise.

I expect gays will get a lot of social justice police on their side for the next. . . 15 years. Stuff like gay wedding cakes and Christian bakers are gonna be played out. I doubt a religious person could go to a gay artist though and ask for political sign that says. "Homosexuality causes disease!"

Our government plays favorites, and the school system is their vehicle. Obama songs and Gay day.

Snowdeath :  First, that second paragraph is just so very wrong. A private person is not a business and marriage is not a service, there are several things you can deny to people arbitrarily, but not things considered services accessible by the public (like a music service for weddings!). That's what the Civil Rights Act is about, services. I've NEVER argued that straight/Christian people are not allowed to deny anything to gay people, just not services of public accommodation as per the Civil Rights Act and state extensions to sexual orientation that might and should become federal. The only thing I see is a grossly false equivalence.