You seem to be implying that only Christianity has this issue; are you implying that?
OK, I got this one. Easy easy easy. He’s trying to prove what the nominee thinks about gay people.
Are you really saying that those whose religious beliefs would engender prejudice (or worse) against those of a different religion, should be allowed to do so?
It’s the classic “tolerance of intolerance” argument.
Wrong.
Such as, for example, thinking gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
Cool. That’s all Booker was asking her, after all. Why are you complaining about Booker trying to make sure a candidate for a judgeship isn’t prejudiced?
Imagine a judicial applicant who had in the past participated in virulently racist demonstrations. Would you be okay with asking this applicant, “Do you believe that nonwhite people should be murdered and that the United States should grant rights only to white people?”
Because that’s a religious position held by the World Church of the Creator–indeed, it’s just about their only position. And courts have held it to be a religiously-protected position.
Game the system indeed. If someone has a fucked up belief, I don’t give a shit what supernatural reason they give for holding the fucked up belief. They shouldn’t have power over others.
Yawn, it’s the old “You’re bigoted against bigoted people!” thing again.
Never mind that Republicans are really actually doing the things you’re pretending Democrats do.
Ok, so lets say that Republicans nomiate a Muslim to the court, and then…
alright, even I couldn’t keep a straight face for that one. Nevermind.
Of course gay people should be allowed to get married. They are human beings, and are thereby entitled to human rights.
The issue is “what is marriage?”
Yeah, so of course what is it?
A topic for another thread 
This is a question you posed in this thread, not another one.
It was a statement. The question was rhetorical in order to state the issue.
The issue is rhetorical. Gotcha.
Then what is your objection to Booker’s line of questioning? Surely, we don’t want to seat justices who are opposed to human rights?
What do you mean by that?
I love when people are completely transparent but believe they’re pulling off some kind of trick…
Well, this gay man happens to be a practicing Catholic, and all sex outside marriage is a sin. That is marriage as a Sacrament of the Church. Civil marriage is a completely different thing. People in common-law marriages are living in a state of sin according to most(all?) denominations but that doesn’t make them bad people, and no one expects them to be discriminated against in a court of law. Civil marriage for gay couples(or any couple) is a good thing for lots of legal and financial reasons but that does not preclude it being sinful. Am I prejudiced against myself because I think the piece of paper/legal designation from the county doesn’t constitute a real, sacramental, marriage?
Suppose Senator Booker had asked if eating meat on Good Friday was a sin and Neomi Rao had replied in the affirmative - would that mean no one would believe she was capable of applying the law fairly to someone who does not fast and abstain?
Cite?
One Party has implied over and over ad nauseam that it’s all about religion. We even learn from the WH PressSec that Trump, the most immoral man ever to even fantasize about becoming President, was chosen by God. Was it Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham’s son who said just a few days ago that Trump is the greatest President since George Washington?
Then a Democratic Senator uses a word like “morality.”
The right-wing babbles about “Intelligent design”, “Christian values,” “homosexuality is forbidden by Leviticus,” et cetera et cetera.
Then a Democratic Senator dares to use a word like “morality.”
Now the self-same Intelligent-design nuts, homophobes, global-warming-is-god’s-will hypocrites want to babble about … about what? About the First Amendment Right to be immoral?
Right-wing American political opinion today most resembles a sequence of badly-written Monty Python skits.
Of course not. Because most of those couples are heterosexual.
I believe the official stance of your church disagrees, does it not? How much did the Catholic church pour into the Prop 8 campaign in California again?
Look, my family is Irish Catholic. My mom goes to mass three times a week. She’s also pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and an ardent feminist. I’m not saying that Catholics are automatically homophobes: I get that most American Catholics are significantly more moral than the Church they attend. But when someone’s up for a position where they’ll have significant influence over the rights of a large number of citizens, the fact that they profess a faith that is actively fighting against our rights is a significant concern - doubly so when her political association teaches exactly the same thing. Booker is absolutely right to question her on this issue.