All legislation is based on beliefs of one fashion or the other. Are you advocating we wipe the slate clean and have a free-for-all?
I was trying to give simple responses to lenghthy thoughts lest I be tarred and feathered for my typically long missives.
Principally, I believe that issues such at these as they relate to what two consenting adults do and the rights their of should be left up to individual States and private institutions. When it becomes Federal the only thing I expect is equal protection under the law. I happen to believe is less government.
That being said as it relates to this particular issue, this was not a privately owned business, therefore they have to give equal access and protections and can't discriminate on things such as fees because of personally held beliefs, unless it just so happens that there is a state or federal statute that happens to agree with their beliefs.
From the article, the only thing we got was one of the management stating that the state of Idaho defines "family" as one man and one woman. And I doubt that is on the books, because "family" is a broad term and if we used that polarizing definition, than people like me never had a family even though all my caretakers were straight. See the issue there.
I think the marriage issue was confused with "family" and that is a problem. Obviously, the State of Idaho considers them a family or they wouldn't give them foster children.
As far as gay pride parades, if it's legal, I don't object.
I'm not stating that we should have a free for all, but once we begin asking government to intercede on behalf of our personal beliefs, we are asking for more government and like I stated I believe in less government.