Sign into an existing account

I don't like it. It sets a terrible precedent.

It says that religion alone gets you an exception to being denied the sovereignty to operate your business as you choose.

The freedoms of association and disassociation should extend to all and not be predicated upon the reasons given for association or refusal of association.

A business should have full discretion in who they choose to serve, what services are on offer, and on what terms services be delivered.

No particular reasoning should be required for refusal. Indeed, it should require no justification at all.

This court case makes refusal of service a matter of religious freedoms rather than a right that exists in all American citizens and requires no particular justification.

A white business owner who refuses to serve blacks should be permitted to do so if that is how they want to run their business.

They won't be able to if the only acceptable basis for such a refusal is that they have a religion that is against it.

I could find a passage in the Bible that says men who engage on gayness should be killed, but can't find one that says anything I could use to justify refusing to serve blacks.

On top on that, what if the store owner is a known atheist who doesn't want to serve gays? He can't use his religious beliefs to justify his refusal to the court because it's known that he doesn't hold such beliefs.

The proceeding court case on his refusal to bake the cake will hinge upon whether he's a homo-hating atheist or a spontaneous convert to some religion that forbids him from serving gays.

Not on whether or not he has the right to refuse service to gays in his own busines because HE chooses to of his own personal judgement.

As a known atheist that was also known to dislike homosexuals before his claims of conversion, and the convenience of the time when such claims of conversion were made before the court.

It'd most likely result in the court concluding that his sudden claims of religiousness were fabricated to allow him the state approved excuse for denial of service, and he'd be forced to bake the cake regardless of his unwillingness to do so.