Gay marriage question

Opinions please.  Lately there has been quite the hulabaloo surrounding the provision of marriage ceremonies and wedding services for gay couples.  In a number of cases, those providing these services to the general public have chosen not to provide their services to gay couple.  A number of times this has resulted in the companies being sanctioned by the state for their refusal to provide the service and claiming they had the right because the companies were being discriminatory.  The companies have been fined and even threatened with jail for their actions. As a parallel, doctors have the right under the law to perform abortions, and they practice in the public domain, but doctors are not FORCED under threat of sanction by the state, to perform abortions if it is against their religious beliefs or if they just choose not to.  So how does the performance of a gay marriage differ? 

Now I know a marriage is a very personal undertaking and I know everyone wants it to be perfect with the right cake and the setting, but I also think there is the emotional side as well. Will the couple really feel their day is perfect if they know the person performing the ceremony, providing the setting  and the cake, etc...etc...etc...are only providing the service under threat of sanction by the state?  Wouldn't that make their "perfect day" rather imperfect?  Why would a couple want to have their marriage performed by someone who doesn't want to do it or have it held at an establishment where they are not welcome?

Should a private business be forced to provide it's products/services to any and everyone who asks for them?  Should they as a "public accommodation" be required, even if it violates their personal creed or religious beliefs, be required under threat of fine or jail, to provide their products/services to any and all?

I know this is an other point surrounding the gay marriage issue and you know, I could care less who lives with who if it makes them happy, but I think this has much broader implication. I think this is more a slippery slope issue with constitutional implications.  I think it goes to the question of individual rights over the rights of the collective.

So, what say you good folk out there?  What right does the state have?  what right does the private company hold?  Should people/private companies be forced against their wishes or should they have the right to choose with whom to conduct or not to conduct business?

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/

MILITARIZATION OF POLICE AND THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

I think there is ample evidence of the Police getting out of hand.  Especially in light of huge increase in the number of laws, many times contradictory, which are written at all levels of government and the extreme tactics which are being employed to enforce these laws.

Herewith is an article from the Washington Examiner which describes the militarization of our police forces: 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/23/police-militarizing-without-any-checks-power-exper/?page=all#pagebreak

How many of you live in small communities which have large and extremely fortified police forces?  How many of you even know how fortified your police force actually is?  Have we really reached the tipping point where the idea of justice is a police force which willingly uses force to strip us of our constitutional rights in an attempt to enforce the law?

How many of you remember the response to the Boston Marathon bombing when the police force cordoned off entire blocks of the city and forced the residents out of their homes as they searched their homes without a warrant?  Does anyone think that show of force was justified or constitutional?  Can you imagine what would occur if a home owner refused to willingly leave and allow police complete access to  their PRIVATE residence?  At the least they would be removed by force and charged criminally.  If they were the least resistant, they would be physically assaulted or worse by the officers who are supposed to "Protect and Serve".

Why do we need an NSA gathering spying on every citizen of the US?  why do we need the CIA, FBI, DIA, TSA, Homeland Security on the national level and State, city, local and sherriff departments on the state level?  all in the name of protecting us when in fact, they do not protect, but instead are in many cases a part of the problem?  Why do we need so many distinct forces, all becoming extremely militarized to protect our streets when they are never available when a crime occurs?

What ever happened to the concept of a police force which is there to "protect and serve" the community at large?  Does this protection extend to the killing of citizens without a trial by jury?  Is it right for the police force to in essence become the supreme law of the land wherein they become judge, jury and executioner with impunity?

Most people have heard about the shooting of unarmed Michael Brown by a white policeman in ferguson Missouri and the riots which occurred in response.  How many of you know about the shooting of an unarmed white young man in Utah by a black policeman a week earlier?  Not many, I'll wager and there was certainly no reaction by the president, US Attorney general and the race baiting Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to this incident.  Now assume that the evidence of the Black Utah cop shooting the unarmed white kid proves to be indictable while the White Fergusons cop shooting the young black man is found to have been in self defense and thereby not indictable.  I'm willing to wager that then you will see Jesse, Sharpton, Holder and need I say Obama leading the riots.

But I digress.  Is either incident right or warranted?  Is the use of extreme, ie... deadly force by police because a young man refuses to immediately honor the orders of a police officer acceptable in our country?  

Is it right that in America, where the violent crime rate has declined for the past 5 years we have seen a 3 fold increase in the average number of killings by police during this same period?  Prior to 2006, FBI statistics show the incidents of lethal force to number under ten a year nationwide.  From 2006 to 2009, they increased to an average of 50 per year.  From 2010 to the current they have averaged over 100 per year. This during a time when the incident of violent crime has been decreasing.

Certainly there is reason for the police to use deadly force in the most extreme cases, but why does it seem that the use of extreme force is occurring with more frequency at a time when the incidence of violent crime is decreasing?  Is this a result of the militarization of our police force?  Is it a result of attempts to enforce the plethora of laws which are overburdening our society?  Is it a case of the police becoming too arrogant? Or is it as simple as the police encountering violent criminals more often than in past years?

We will probably n ever be able to answer these questions to any degree of certainty, but we must look at what is happening in our country and how this country based on the ideals of self governance and personal responsibility has become a country wherein almost anything one does on a daily basis can be construed as being illegal in some manner, shape of form and might be met with lethal force for not complying immediately to one of the myriad "officials"ndemands.

Just something to think about.