[Mr Rogers]

“Lorence said Americans do not surrender their freedoms of speech or religion just because they choose to open a business.”

Suppose you say your religion prevents you from serving blacks...perhaps you are a hold-over of the old Mormon religion, with its belief that black skin is a punishment for sin.

If you refuse to serve blacks, you WILL be prosecuted and convicted. Same with drugs, etc - your religious beliefs CAN conflict with anti-discrimination laws and result in punishment.

[Hacksaw]

Suppose you say your religion prevents you from serving blacks...perhaps you are a hold-over of the old Mormon religion, with its belief that black skin is a punishment for sin.

Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.

[Neoliberalnot]

“Suppose you say your religion prevents you from serving blacks...perhaps you are a hold-over of the old Mormon religion, with its belief that black skin is a punishment for sin.”

Homosexual behavior like pedophilic and beastophilic behaviors are just that, behaviors. Comparing perverts to racial makeup is extremely insulting.

[SuziQ]

Homosexuality is NOT an immutable condition. It is a activity of CHOICE; not something with which one is born, and cannot change. People who do not accept the activity, and choose not to participate with activities of the people who do, should not be subject to harassment or legal punishment. I'm not talking about folks who would harm those with whom they disagree, I'm just talking about those who don't necessarily want to do business with them.

The thing about homosexuality is that you'd never know someone was homosexual unless they told you or demonstrated it in some way.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Suppose you say your religion prevents you from serving blacks...perhaps you are a hold-over of the old Mormon religion, with its belief that black skin is a punishment for sin."

I think it's different in this respect: the photographers didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay. If two lesbians came in and requested photographs of their rose garden, it would be like two black people, or two communists, or two Muslims who wanted photos of their garden. No problem.

The problem was was not the people who asked for the photos, but the activity they were asked to photograph: a commitment ceremony they believed to be illegitimate. That is more like communist wanting photographs of their pro-Castro rally, or Muslims wanting pictures of their 15-y-o daughter's arranged marriage with her 40 year old uncle. It was the "occasion" they found offenseive, and which they didn't want to be a part of.

Which is why I think the photographers will win their case.

Ultimately, though, I do believe that business people's right to freedom of enterprise should be respected. The state should not be able to require anybody to enter into a contract against his will.