[Regal]

The contrary argument is obvious. The practice of religion, any and every religion, is Constitutionally protected, but business ownership is not. The argument is if your religious beliefs disallow you to treat everyone equally, then you cannot go into business.

[don-o]

I do not understand. Can you explain what you are getting at?

[sten]

actually, what you do in your business is protected by the first amendment.

do you think only artists, writers, filmmakers, and journalists are protected under the freedom of expression?

whenever you use your expertise, be it painting or flipping burgers, you are expressing yourself (with the desire to be paid). that expression does not have to be religious or political... it just has to be an expression of your existence on this plane.

in the end, the first amendment is protection against the ability of others to force you to do things against your will

[Mrs. Don-o]

Are you saying that people who sell a "message" item have to produce messages with which they do not agree, and which constitutes for them a cooperation with evil??

The Black newspaper has to run an ad for the Klan rally?

The Jewish silk-screener has to produce a Swastika T-shirt?

The Christian liturgical designer has to decorate an altar for Satanist devotees?

The Yezhedi banner maker has to make banners for ISIS?

They are not allowed to turn down a proposal?

Or what? Fines? Imprisonment? The loss of business + home + retirement savings (which is what they're doing to Baronelle Stutzman) who is actually a friend of the gay male couple in question, but could not in conscience help them celebrate their wedding?

And if Mrs. Stutzman still won't bake the damn cake, I suppose we'll have to go to flogging?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Correction: Baronelle Stutzman is not the baker, she is the florist who wouldn't create floral arrangements for the gay couple --- even though she had no problem selling the same guys flowers for birthdays and other occasions.

So it wasn't the gay guys, per se, she had a problem with. It was the message: the "gay marriage" message.

On being forced to promote and propagate other people's messages, no matter how repugnant to your own moral integrity, I offer this statement of principle by Thomas Jefferson:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson