I come in peace and I'm asking to be educated. I support the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, but I find the "religious freedom" argument sympathetic--as refers to NON-GOVERNMENTAL entities. In that regard, if a priest in a church (a church, not a county court) won't marry a gay couple why should they be sued and sentenced to one year in jail like the current Vermont case? Why can't a restaurant owner refuse to bake a wedding cake without getting their livelihood destroyed? That part I don't understand. I support gay marriage, but if we're talking about private people and entities, I don't get why they have to be coerced to act in any certain way. Isn't that rather authoritarian? I feel like there is a simple rationale that I'm not seeing, or that I'm buying into some dishonest conservative narrative--hence this diary asking fellow Kossites to set me straight--in layman's terms. Is the answer to my question as simple as substituting "black" for "gay"?
EDIT: I am asking from genuine ignorance, and seeking to debunk right-wing talking points. At it's face the "religious freedom" argument DOES seem sympathetic provided it's not being applied in the public sector. Hence, I'm seeking to understand. Nothing more, nothing less. I am a gay marriage SUPPORTER, but nonetheless apologies if this is offensive to anyone.
10:26 AM PT: The Vermont case is fake as flagged, my bad. I'm still interested in the general conversation, I appreciate those breaking it down.