And yet preventing or stopping harassment and damage from fake malicious rules is also completely reasonable thing for a business to do and within their rights.
If he's wrong and simply trying to intimidate people, then he is then leaving himself open to a countersuit.
There is no problem here.

If you caused harm to someone, such a business, by saying a false thing, then you are at fault and liable.
But if the thing you said was true, then the someone cannot blame you for saying a true thing.
Reviews having a greater likelihood of being contentious may need a stricter legal standard before finding fault, but the potential is still there and rightfully so.

then i take it you are against the right to:
-vote
-privacy
-travel
-marry
-custody of one's children
-control upbringing of said children
-engage in sexual activity, or not
-cease medical treatment
-access the courts
-right to be presumed innocent
-right to a fair trial
-right to a jury of your peers
-and lastly the very concept of judicial review itself

No it's not tyranny.
Expanding freedom and liberty more fully across the citizenry is never tyranny, and you are quite ignorant for even saying that.

which by the way does not mean that churches will be required to marry gay folks (they wont), so no point even trying to go there.

a church is not a business advertising itself to the public, so public accommodation restrictions on discrimination dont apply like they do to that bigoted pizza joint in indiana. a church is private religious entity and our country bends over backwards to avoid forcing those to act against their tenets.

you can practice your religion all you want....up to the point where it requires you to discriminate or otherwise impair the freedom of someone else.

these "religious liberty" arguments in defense of discrimination are nothing but polished turds.

It sounds attractive, but actually there is much good that comes of it.
Visitation rights and natural assumption of your spouse's property for starters.

Fundamental civics fail
Please go read the 9th Amendment.

Marriage is aboslutely a fundamental right for all persons.
The Constitution is NOT, nor should it ever be thought it, as a list of all enumerated rights people have.
Rather it even quite explicitly states that it should NOT be considered to be the be all end all list of rights.

-- 9th Amendment

Put simply: we the people have every single damn right we say we do, and can convince the rest of society to accept.
Thus we have the right to vote, marry, privacy, education, work, travel, and a host of others that have been through the courts yet not explicitly detailed in the text of the USC.

That's why it's sometimes said, as these rights have been defended in court, that the Constitution has always contained and protected these rights.
We as a society had simply not advanced enough to yet grasp them.

Think of what new rights society will have learned about in the next 100 years, brought on by technological progress and societal change.

considering the considerable bibliography included on any given article they publish, please, feel free to point out where they have made a mistake.

it would be much more convincing than simply vaguely waving your hand in the air and claiming BS without proving it.

facts dont use validity because of who says them.
the fact that you think they do indicates you are weak of intellect and unable to handle a challenge to your views let alone back it up and defend it.

the three great religions you say?
you'll have to refresh me. I'm not very current on what islam, hindu, and buddism say about marriage.

*mic drop*

and such a statement from the people directly contradicts another, previous time that the humans got together and wrote documents and established ideals dealing with liberty and equality. and those prior statements, by virtue of being contained in the constitution, outweigh the recent ballot initiative. we've so enshrined these concepts within our highest law that it's become unquestionable and removes the question of any person liberty from ever being subjected to a popular vote, for people are fickle things, and left to a vote, the nation would still have slavery.

which is ultimately why its a good thing freedom isnt usually put up to a vote.

you try to sound erudite, you try to sound reasonable, but ultimately youre still just a troll trying to form the nation and its precepts to fit your mold for it based on your religious views, imposing them on others, Constitution be damned.

Huckabee and Santorum will, and already are.
The others too, but a lesser degree.

But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right.
Which actually saddens me a bit. Would prefer the choice weren't so slam dunk one sided. (not because I'm likely to actually vote GOP...but simply because I recognize that it's typically unhealthy for a single party, even the party I prefer, to dominate unchecked)

But eventually the drought will end, and they'll get that smarter candidate you mention. Someone who's a junior member of the part right now, and not yet already built a career and a history on the issue.

But the OP right. This saves the party from bloody and public infighting over a topic that could divide the party as they try to come to an understanding , since it's now been settled by outside agency, instead of internal dialogue.

then you should celebrate this decision, as it's not the end of the rule of law.
Nor is freedom and equality is ever a state issue.
(We kind of fought a pretty significant and bloody war over that...)

There are certain benefits granted to married couples. Many of these make perfect sense. For example, when you die, your spouse gets automatic legal claim to your property or half of the estate, as well being exempt from rules and taxes that otherwise apply to the transfer of ownership upon death.

At least as long as you're heterosexual anyways.

For the longest time the law treated homosexual couples as legal strangers, unable to assume their partners estate even after a lifetime together, or unable to make any medical decisions for their incapacitated partner, indeed sometimes even unable to simply BE with their partner in the hospital. Or assume survivor benefits. Or a host of other examples.

All simple and accepted benefits and privileges granted to one group of married people, and not another, simply on the basis of their gender.

the only laws being scrapped here are unjust and unconstitutional laws that impose a discriminatory burden upon a segment of society.

Indeed, it's the very same argument they did use against interracial marriage.
Was also used to defend jim crow and segregation, as well as used against women's suffrage.
in fact, half the country once went to war with the other half, using a variation of the argument as the basis of their defense of slavery.

it's basically been used every time someone has resisted accepting the equality of a as yet unequal group of people.

The court isn't telling all 50 states what to do.
It's telling them what to STOP doing, which is stop banning gay marriage and unjustly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of a segment of the populace.

And the democratic process angle is bogus, besides being essentially the same argument the South eventually went to war over.
Civil rights and freedoms cannot be left to popular vote. If we did that, the histories of slavery, jim crow, and interracial marriage would have been a lot different...specifically longer lasting.

Sometimes a society achieves progress through popular referendum.
But sometimes it has to be dragged kicking and screaming.