[danielsju6]

1) No, that's silly 2) No, the florist would not be in violation of anti-discrimination 3) No, if he didn't already sell pork he wouldn't be forced to

The last point, fair. No one said the cake had to be good :P It's just their professional reputation on the line.

The protected populations are rather limited "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation", there may be additional protections in your jurisdiction + it has to be a product/service you already provide.

If you bake cakes, you can't refuse a cake to a gay couple; you could refuse on any number of other grounds though. If you don't sell pork, you can't be forced to. But breaking our laws because you like a book (legally speaking) is not allowed.

* FYI I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you're refusing service to anyone for anything other than business reasons you should double check with your counsel. You could be violating feduciary duty, etc.

[LordKano]

I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want make a wedding cake with two grooms on it.

I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want to photograph a wedding ceremony with two brides.

The law has no regard for silly.

Moreover, you're missing the point. I picked people for my example because we all understand how repugnant those people would find it to be forced to take part in certain actions.

I get it, religious people are a convenient target of scorn and ridicule but the government shouldn't be in the business of coercing people to provide non-essential services to others.

So, a black ER doctor should have to provide assistance to the KKK member who was just shot and a Jewish pharmacist should have to fill the prescription for the neo-nazi's cancer medication.

Those are life and death issues, so they're not the same as someone getting their feelings hurt because someone else didn't want to associate with them.

[danielsju6]

None of the examples you listed in the GP were illegal.

The first two you listed here are, if it is proven in court that they were discriminating based on sexual-orientation. If the baker doesn't do bespoke decorations, fine. If the photographer doesn't shoot weddings, fine.

If you don't obey the law A) you're not a good Christian B) you don't get to engage in commerce in the United States of America.

Also please show me in your holy book where it says "thou shall not participate in commerce with homosexuals"

[LordKano]

None of the examples you listed in the GP were illegal.

Yes, that was the point. I'm talking about the weaponization of the law.

Also please show me in your holy book where it says "thou shall not participate in commerce with homosexuals"

Please show me where I ever said that it was my book.

[danielsju6]

Also, if they were sued into bankruptcy they clearly didn't set up their corporation correctly.

If they are bankrupt it's more likely they spent all their money on their crusade in the courts + lost IMO.

[danielsju6]

You can't discriminate based on "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation" that's the law. It's not a matter of repugnance, it's not a matter of silly. It's about protecting rights that the free market was unwilling to correct for on it's own.

Just cause you like a book doesn't mean you can ignore the law.

Those devout Christians had no business exchanging services for currency if they can't respect the law. Commerce is regulated per our Constitution.

[LordKano]

You can't discriminate based on "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation" that's the law.

I have noticed that every time you say this, you conveniently leave out "religion". It's against the law to discriminate against someone because of their religion too.

Commerce is regulated per our Constitution.

Interstate commerce is regulated per our Constitution. Intrastate commerce falls under other laws.