All sarcasm aside, where the law is going to be challenged is the commerce angle. No one has to participate in a gay ceremony or ritual, that part of the law is air tight and is an extension of the law signed by Clinton. But, commerce is regulated by the Congress per the Constitution and that is where this lawe is likely to be attacked. No one can force me to participate in a ceremony, but at the same time, when I choose to enter into the stream of congress I volunteer to be regulated by the federal government. If I don’t want to serve gays, or blacks or Protestants, or redheads, I don’t go into business, not go into business and then discriminate. Eventually this law will be tweaked per a Constitutional challenge.
Refusing to serve someone because of the way they were born is against the law. There is no “gay” gene so there is no proof they were born that way. I could just as easily say I was born Republican because I have always felt I was a Republican.
But isn”t the florist, the photographer, the wedding cake maker “participating”- in the wedding ritual when they perform their service? These type of services are unique, creative expressions from the provider. These are not off the shelf type of items you sell in a store.
Is there no instance in which a provider of a service can deny that service?