Point is I don't think gays are asking for your spiritual blessing on their lifestyle any more than the agnostics or atheists are, nor am I. My beliefs on homosexuality are the last thing on the list of things to worry about come judgment day. If that's at the top of yours, or in the top tier, great. Your life, your beliefs, your choice. I can respect those beliefs and reject them same way I respect but reject Islam or Buddhism.
But if you start tying government benefits to how well a person lives his or her life in accordance with your interpretation of the Bible, you'll find that those efforts will be overwhelmingly rejected. But when we do the same to gay couples, they're supposed to accept that without a peep of protest. So when you say that acceptance is all they "claim" (whatever that means) to want, it's not your spiritual "acceptance" just that they be treated like adulterers, the greedy, the divorced, the liars, the non-believers, etc. who (e.g.) can all line up and get a marriage license.
So if the person ordering the cake for the gay wedding was straight, there would be no discrimination.It depends on whether or not you provide those services to others but refuse to certain groups based on classifications of those people protected by the law.
For example, you cannot agree to provide a cake for a "pot legalization" party/rally for everyone except Mormons, because your beliefs go against contributing to other people breaking what you believe to be their religious tenets/restrictions. You couldn't agree to sell a cake for a Republican candidate to anyone except gay Republicans, at least not in places that include sexual orientation/sexuality as protected class. You can't refuse to provide services to a Planned Parenthood party/event, unless it included a certain percentage of black people.
The bakers all provided wedding cakes. They were refusing service based on the people involved in the event, not the actual event.
Here is a list of States with Religious Freedom Restoration Acts...
Religious Freedom Restoration Act perils | Professor Marci A. Hamilton | States
AZ, FL, IL, LA, SC, TX standard state RFRA
AL, CT would have deleted or deletes “substantial” from substantial burden
RI, NM, MO removed “substantial burden” and replaced with restrict
ID, KS, KY, OK, PA, TN, VA adds to government’s burden: clear and convincing evidence
MS expands to include suits between private parties
MS applies to businesses
MS works against homosexuals or same-sex couples
Didn't the governor of Connecticut just ban travel to IA? But wait...
Connecticut gov imposes travel ban over Indiana
Thay have the same law! LOL!
Libs, you have a lot of States you can't got to now. You better get this sorted out!
"We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
"I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker
legally there isn't. Politically there is, due to the hyperbolic hysteria going on. Hopefully then blood pressures will come down, people will pull their skirts off their heads, folks will take an actual rational look at what it means to apply a strict scrutiny standard, and the self-aware liberals will feel a bit embarrassed about the whole thing, while the majority will simply either pretend it never happened, or refuse to look at the material.If your side is telling the truth....there is no need for changes or any other kind of "clarification"
Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.