religious-minded people IN NO WAY should be expected to accept edicts that run completely contrary to their perception of human interrelations.
suppose the scotus ruled in favor of pedophia or bestiality? would you argue that such practices fell within the purview of basic human rights and or liberty???
the other point is that set standards of moral conduct have to be maintained from generation to generation otherwise degradation, corruption and collapse of those standards will occur...and to a considerable extent have.
so asking people of faith to accept a form of secular godlessness without so much as a squawk is not reasonable...
nor is it reasonable to characterize legitimate moral objections religious americans have as bigotry, hatred and prejudice.
Laws shouldn't be created just because a majority doesn't 'accept' something. NO SIR. Laws are to protect the general populace from harm. AGAIN, two gays getting married does NOT harm anyone.
I have NO issue with you NOT accepting gay marriage, or anything else. NO issue at all, but when you call for laws that PREVENT others from engaging in practices that you don't accept, you have crossed a line that to me is immoral.
Again, you are the one that introduced the concepts of freedom and authoritarianism: making something illegal denies freedom and you have provided NO reasons for such a law since you can't show that HARM is caused to others. YOU are the one that wants a Nanny State. THINK about that Nip and be honest. It is YOU that is calling on a nanny that denies freedom to others.
TRUMP understands this and that is why he doesn't wish to ban SSM. Listen to your leader.