Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[bodecea]

No, that's the problem with ANY belief: there's always someone who thinks your beliefs are bullshit. Aaaaand that's why we have the First Amendment. Like I've said before, no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of; it's only needed for beliefs that go against the majority.

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

People attack the right of the majority (Christians) all the time over being able to or not teach Creationism. Sorry, better luck next time.

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

If he doesn't have a business license. If he has one, he has to follow the business laws of his state.

 

[Coyote]

No, that's the problem with ANY belief: there's always someone who thinks your beliefs are bullshit. Aaaaand that's why we have the First Amendment. Like I've said before, no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of; it's only needed for beliefs that go against the majority.

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

People attack the right of the majority (Christians) all the time over being able to or not teach Creationism. Sorry, better luck next time.

They can teach creationism. They cant teach it as science in public schools. Religious is not science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

FYI, the significance of the cake is determined by the baker whose religious beliefs are the topic, not by you. You do not get to dictate what his beliefs do and don't entail.

You see, no one gives a fuck what you give a fuck about. Every second of time you waste virtue-signaling by pronouncing on your opinions is a second wasted, because your opinion is irrelevant to someone else's rights. IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Feel free to judge anyone you want. Just don't get pissy when they tell you they didn't ask, and they don't care.

How many times must you be told that you aren't getting answers to your question because YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE IT ANSWERED? IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

No one's "avoiding" your question. We're giving it exactly the respect and attention it deserves, which is none, because YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO HAVE IT ANSWERED.

 

[Cecilie1200]

absolutely not. There are laws against illegal termination.
If a person FIRES an employee because he DISCOVERS
that the employee is a homosexual---that is illegal too.

The question is whether it should be illegal. If a baker can refuse to serve a customer on moral grounds, why can't employer?

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

OK so if that painter refuses to paint a nude of you and paints a nude of someone else his so called moral justification is null and void.

So if a cake maker makes a cake for one sinner then his refusal to make a cake for another sinner is null and void

And again: your opinion of what someone else should and shouldn't believe doesn't make anything "null and void", because they DO NOT REQUIRE YOUR APPROVAL. No one is required to get your validation of the consistency and correctness of their personal beliefs.

So if a cake maker . . . NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Then he has to . . . NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

and lawmakers have decided that public accommodation laws apply to all businesses open to the public

And they're wrong for doing so.

Is anyone here trying to say that that isn't the current law in Colorado? No? Then why the bloody hell do you keep telling us that it is as though you are triumphantly disputing something?

The topic here is whether or not it SHOULD be the law, based on whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment. Circle-jerk tautologies are useless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

absolutely not. There are laws against illegal termination.
If a person FIRES an employee because he DISCOVERS
that the employee is a homosexual---that is illegal too.

The question is whether it should be illegal. If a baker can refuse to serve a customer on moral grounds, why can't employer?

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------it is NOT illegal to refuse to engage in
in a professional activity that violates one's sense of morality. If a doctor is asked to do an abortion-------but he
has moral principles AGAINST abortion-----he need not do it.
You remain dim. If a fine artist refuses to paint a child in
the nude----he need not do it even if portraiture is his advertised profession and he has done female adult nudes
in the past. The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

OK so if that painter refuses to paint a nude of you and paints a nude of someone else his so called moral justification is null and void.

So if a cake maker makes a cake for one sinner then his refusal to make a cake for another sinner is null and void

no-----your use of the word "sinner" is not valid. The
the situation of the artist is his OWN SIN. If the artist
considers it a sin to paint a nude of a child vs the nude
of an adult-----his position is valid. If the artist agrees
to paint a man and women in amorous embrace---but
not a man and a man------his concept of his OWN morality
is valid. The term "sinner" is overbroad. Bacon is food---
if a diner in a restaurant declines to eat bacon-----that is
also a valid choice even if he has agree to eat FOOD
in a restaurant

But the reason given for refusing to bake a cake was that homosexuality is a sin. It seems to be the only sin that warrants the refusal of service

And now I'll bring it back what if a person believes he is committing a sin by hiring women? What if he truly believes his immortal soul will be in danger if he hires women?

Just FYI, if you had bothered to read up on this case and Mr. Phillips a little, you would know that that ISN'T the only event for which he refuses to bake cakes.

And now I'll bring it back to "I don't want to bake your cake" is not even remotely analogous to "You no longer have an income."

 

[Cecilie1200]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender

Yes. The question is whether it should be.

The issue is whether or not there is a REAL
REASON that does not represent gender or race bigotry

This issue is whether government should be deciding which reasons are "real" or not. ie which biases are allowed and which aren't.

right----law makers have decided that one cannot fire
an employee without LEGAL cause. It is not legal to
discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation in
FIRING AN EMPLOYEE

and lawmakers have decided that public accommodation laws apply to all businesses open to the public

what are you calling "accommodation" ? If the baker refused to sell a cake to a person because the person
is a homosexual---THAT IS DENIAL OF A PUBLIC
ACCOMODATION----but the baker cannot be forced
to create a cake that he considers immoral. That is why
I have stated that the proposed situation did not provide
enough INFORMATION

So now the cake is immoral?

The cake he would bake for a gay couple is in no way different from the cake he would bake for any other wedding.

He disagrees, and it's HIS beliefs at stake, not yours.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

Not quite. He refused based on the nature of the event, which related to their sexual orientation.

He offered to sell them several other sorts of cakes, as I understand it, and there ARE other events for which he refuses to bake cakes, although he remains perfectly happy to sell all those people any other sort of baked good that doesn't fall under those headings.

 

[Cecilie1200]

what are you calling "accommodation" ? If the baker refused to sell a cake to a person because the person
is a homosexual---THAT IS DENIAL OF A PUBLIC
ACCOMODATION----but the baker cannot be forced
to create a cake that he considers immoral. That is why
I have stated that the proposed situation did not provide
enough INFORMATION

Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes doesn't consider Wedding Cakes to be immoral, he advertises for their sale.

He considered the customers immoral because of their sexual orientation and therefore refused sale of a good and service he normally provided as part of his business model. If Mr. Phillips considers wedding cakes as immoral, he is free not to produce them for anyone. However if he produces them for one group, then it's not the cake, it's the customer he's discriminating against.



>>>>

No, he considers certain events to be activities with which he does not wish to be associated. He made no judgements about the customers at all, and certainly did not refuse to do any and all business with them. He just doesn't want to bake THAT cake for THAT event.

He's discriminating solely against the event, not the people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not offering birth control as compensation isn't treating others badly.

Yes it is. It may put that woman at risk of illness or an unwanted pregnancy (How do you feel about abortion?)

She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?

What the fuck do you mean " sort out some for herself?" Are you actually a woman? Do you know that it can be expensive? Do you understand the benefits beyond birth control:

Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill | Center for Young Women's Health

Birth control? Is expensive? Clearly YOU are not a woman.

I don't give a fuck about the benefits beyond birth control if I'M not the one taking it. Do YOU understand that if it's "HER body, HER choice", then it's HER fucking problem?

Nice unhinged right wing rant. Thank you for confirming that you are a selfish, heartless, tea party freedom caucus type that does not give a fuck about anyone else. And you might not think that BC is cheep but I know for a fact that some women struggle with the cost

Thank you for wasting my time with opinions I didn't ask for and don't care about. I don't meet up with your standards. Boo fucking hoo. Remind me when it was that I was trying to.

Birth control IS cheap, dimwit. Unlike you, you mansplaining ass napkin, I actually am a woman, and do not require some condescending feminazi penis-bearer to "helpfully" tell me about what it's like to live as a woman or what women "should" think and believe. Even if I DID live up to your apparent opinion of women and require a man to do my thinking for me, you neither qualify as a man in my book, nor are you intelligent enough to fulfill the job.

Gotta love some needledick man who attacks women over "women's rights". Only on the left.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

There's a difference between "want to be consistent" and "want to be consistent by Skull's standards". Contemplate this reality.

As for you running to the blacks, already been answered and ignored by you because it refused to further your agenda.

 

[Cecilie1200]

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

Maybe it would be, but I doubt murderers announce the fact they are murderers and ask for a cake to celebrate their murder(s)?

It doesn't matter does it?

Or is ignorance of sin an excuse?

If you don’t know a person has sinned (ie murdered in your example) you don’t know, do you????

Isn't it your duty to ask I mean if serving sinners endangers your immortal soul why take the risk?

The answer to this would require you to comprehend the notion of minding your own business, and you're too busy pretending to be God's executive assistant to do that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

You certainly do spend a lot of time demanding things from people just as if you have a right to them. You must be frustrated a good deal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

I think if the baker is baking the cake to order it’s differemt.
This from a recent case:


Calif. Court Rules Christian Baker Cannot Be Forced to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

"No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.
The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.

For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment," he added.

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund which represented Miller in the case said Lampe's ruling represented a win for religious liberty.

See, I think whether or not it's different is a decision between the person making it and his or her God.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

When it comes to decisions about who we associate with - who we work for, who we serve, who hire or fire - government shouldn't be allowed to second guess our reasons.

Or even ask them.

 

[danielpalos]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

They are supposed to make a profit, not whine about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

Maybe it would be, but I doubt murderers announce the fact they are murderers and ask for a cake to celebrate their murder(s)?

It doesn't matter does it?

Or is ignorance of sin an excuse?

If you don’t know a person has sinned (ie murdered in your example) you don’t know, do you????

Isn't it your duty to ask I mean if serving sinners endangers your immortal soul why take the risk?

I don’t know if it’s a duty to ask, I’m not religious, maybe someone who is can answer. BUT I would imagine not knowing means it isn’t a sin, as one can’t possibly know everything about a customer or even another person in general and can’t be expected to. People generally don’t announce their ‘sins’ to others, but clearly this is not the case when a same sex couple order a wedding cake.
Also. there is probably the issue of repentance. A gay person ordering a wedding cake for a wedding to someone of the same sex clearly isn’t repenting.

No, God does not require us to be omniscient, nor does He require us to be insufferably nosy assholes, which is a concept Skull seems to be unable to grasp.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

I think if the baker is baking the cake to order it’s differemt.
This from a recent case:


Calif. Court Rules Christian Baker Cannot Be Forced to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

"No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.
The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.

For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment," he added.

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund which represented Miller in the case said Lampe's ruling represented a win for religious liberty.

Well we disagree there.

But lets apply the refusal thing to other situations.

If your boss decides that employing women is a sin can he fire them all?
If your boss thinks employing people in mixed marriages is a sin can he fire them for it?

I’m not aware of anything in the bible that says employing people in mixed marriages or employing women is a sin.

Bible's not the only religious book in the world, not to mention that people project their own interpretations onto ALL religious books all the time. In a manner of speaking, that's sort of the point of personal religious beliefs.

I could see a new convert to fundamentalist Islam, for example, deciding that it's sinful for women to work. Again, I myself would be out the damned door before he got a chance to fire me, because I wouldn't want to work for someone like that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When it comes to decisions about who we associate with - who we work for, who we serve, who hire or fire - government shouldn't be allowed to second guess our reasons.

So is that a yes or a no to the question?

That's an unequivocal 'yes'.

OK

I don't disagree with you but given the fact that we have laws to prevent such actions then until those laws are repealed anyone violating them will face the consequences.

It's my understanding that the point of the thread is discussing whether it should be illegal. The fact of the matter is that the law does violate religious freedom, as well as the more fundamental freedom of association. It should be struck down.

Wouldas shouldas and couldas have little to do with reality

Unless, of course, the point is to change reality to fit better with what it should be.