Replies

I think they should appeal based on the argument that it’s not their choice.

That they have a right to be Christian, in their denomination.

And that their denomination teaches that homosexual marriage goes against the will of God.

Therefore, in order to practice their religion, they cannot support homosexual religion.

In other words, make the Court address the application of religion - that’s what the issue is.

Application is everything - the Court already acknowledges that there are exemptions for churches and religious schools. That means there are exemptions where the act cannot be separated from the religious belief.

That’s what needs to be argued - that business dos not separate a person from their religious belief.

And here, I’ll prove it - if this was a Muslim bakery, that’s exactly what would be argued.

And it would win.

Yeah, forget almost. For all you lib lurkers out there who are outraged that these bakers should refuse... You want the freedom for deviants not to be persecuted for their deviant behavior, then you have to allow non deviants the same freedom - don’t persecute them for being normal. Oh, don’t like my use of deviant and normal? Look up the meanings and the statistics, then sit down and shut up.

This is a First Amendment issue. Time, and past time, to point out that Jesus is mentioned in the Constitution:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
Note that the date is not specified as “1787 CE,” but “in the year of “our Lord” 1787. And just who does “our Lord” refer to? Why, the One whose birth was conventionally dated as having occurred 1787 years prior to the signing Constitution.
The Constitution is also written in English, and whatever accommodations might be made for speakers of other tongues, you cannot go to court and say, “I have a Spanish translation of the Constitution - and according to it my interpretation of the Constitution is right and your interpretation of the English version is wrong.” The language is part of the culture, and some things just don’t translate perfectly. English Common Law continued to hold sway in America after the Declaration of Independence and after the Constitution itself, unless specifically overturned by legislation.
The First Amendment, read in the light of that reference to Jesus, says that before the law all religions are equal - especially Christianity. You can say all you want about other religions being respected - but if there comes an issue where you have to choose between competing claims, failing to respect the rights of Christians is no more consistent with the understanding of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution than holding a trial in which Spanish translations of the laws was held to be superior to the originals of those laws, which were written in English.