Oh, I see. You want to invoke God for things you agree with, but claim religious oppression for things you do not agree with. God intended for sexual intercourse to happen, too; but not in public, and not with just anybody. His word was very specific about marriage and modesty.
From what I have seen and read there is no indication that this woman was not using a cover...
Then you have not been reading this thread. Posts were very clear that she was a no-cover militant who refused to cover. Proof that attention to the sensibilities of others is an issue for you.
Sex and sex-related zones belong within the home and marriage. Most people don't want to see a stranger's nips in what should be a safe zone in the middle of a busy day. People want to bring curious children or their business associates into a coffee bar without any private "reproductive" issues on display and insisted upon by a small minority of womyn.
Lack of consideration for the costs of doing business when militant liberal feminist social reformers start to sue a small private enterprise is not a conservative value.
“Lack of consideration for the costs of doing business when militant liberal feminist social reformers start to sue a small private enterprise is not a conservative value. “
No one is being sued in this situation.