I agree. That is why Christians would have to prove that the Bible says the inter-racial marriage is a sin, but they can't, it doesn't. The churches that support it are not Biblical and are merely racist.
IF they could prove it that would be a different story.
No. Because the First Amendment isn't limited to the Christian Bible. It applies to all religions. Other religions have tenets that can be proven to be parts of their religion, but that violate American law. The First Amendment freedom of religion does not override the general laws.
Allowances can be made, and certain practices tolerated (example: Sikhs wearing small swords contrary to some "no weapons" requirements in public colleges), but those practices need not be tolerated in other places, such as airport security.
The point is that it is the law - not the individuals in their religion - who decide what the limits of toleration and allowances are. For example: the Amish practicing their traditional religion have been exempted from Social Security taxation. They don't have to be - they could be required to pay in. But our government debated the matter and decided to extend them that special limitation, as an allowance to their religious practice.
On the contrary, however, certain hallucinogenic mushrooms are a fundamental aspect of the traditional religious practices of certain Southwestern American Indian tribes,"ganja" is central to Rastafarian practice, and human sacrifice is required for the traditional Aztec religion. But in all of these cases, the things being protected by the general laws of the country have been deemed, but us as a government, to be too important to permit these religious practices. It doesn't matter that the human sacrifice is THE fundamental piece of the Aztec religion - that's murder under our laws, and cannot be done. Effectively this outlaws the practice of Aztec religion in America. The First Amendment, like all other civil rights, is not absolute and is limited by other rights - and the right to not be murdered is more important than the right to practice a religion. Similar rulings have been made regarding those religions for whom the use of illegal drugs, or the practice of underaged or group sex, are vital rites. The general drug laws of the United States are more important than the freedom of religion, and local ordinances based on community standards override any religious rites involving sex.
Religion is not absolutely protected by the Constitution, just as speech, gun rights and all other rights are not. Rights are always limited, because any unlimited right would be the loose dangling thread by which the entire civil society were to be unraveled by whomever decided to pull it.
The question, then, is whether religious racism - particularly against large classes of people such as Blacks - falls into the category of Social Security and the Amish, or falls more into the category of practicing human sacrifice.
For the bulk of Americans, permitting business to bar blacks on ANY grounds is of far greater importance than, say, preventing American Indians from using hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Racism in America caused a civil war, the inner cities, massive crime, and trillions in social expenses. Nothing like some people's mere religion is going to be allowed to override the interest of the American people to be done with it.
So in truth, as a categorical matter, the First Amendment provides absolutely no protection at all to any religion that claims a religious basis for discriminating against black people EVEN IF the belief is sincerely held by the people of that faith.
This actually COULD bite down in a real world sense, were high caste Indian Hindus in America seek to bar bottom caste Indian "untouchables" from their stores in the general commerce. In American. the Hindu caste system cannot be enforced in the public stream of commerce.
Another example: Muslims can marry four wives under their religion. In America they can only marry one. The national laws supersede the religion.
With race in general, and the black race in particular, given our history, it doesn't matter what your religion is, or your sincerely held personal beliefs are. There is NO grounds on which the national policy of non-discrimination grants you an exception. It is actually very, very important that racists be forced to bow to the law and serve blacks. American racism was litigated by the battlefield, and in a thousand court battles for a hundred years afterwards. My side won. And we make a point of rooting out racists and making them serve black in their businesses, precisely because we KNOW that they hate doing so. If they refuse, we destroy their businesses and bankrupt them and take their money away. They don't refuse much anymore, but we actively seek them out, in search-and-destroy missions. And we publicize every case we find from sea to shining sea. Why? After so much bloodshed and so much expense and loss and tragedy, we are establishing who is master no, and who will kneel and serve or be destroyed. The choices are: abandon your racism or we have the legal right to oppress you with the law. And we will, because you're evil and we enjoy it.
That's the truth of it, and the why and wherefore of it. It's useless to try to find some sort of constitutional principle on which the losing side of a hundred year war gets to win. The winners will never let that happen.
You don't have the right to be in business if you're going to discriminate against people based on their race.