"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

Most of religious laws are VERy specific.

yes most, not all

when marriage is described in the bible do the verses ever talk about same sex couples in an accepting way?  Because it often says wives, wife, man all describing heterosexual marriage.  Do you know of any verses where it's ambiguous or open to interpretation with regards to gay marriage being acceptable?

since there are specifics about heterosexual marriage, duties, responsibilities it is of importance, but I am unaware of any such instructions towards homosexual marriage, are there any?

I will assume there isn't but open to change my mind, but if there aren't any we'd have to ask why, couple of reasons I can think of, they simply forgot?  not very likely, it just wasn't a thing back then and or it couldn't be a thing back then, it was not accepted, acceptable.

the bible acknowledges man and woman unions,marriages whatever in an acceptable way, but not homosexual ones that I'm aware of.

Generally, that is how it should be for closely held corporations.  They are already protected by the United States Constitution.  

Perhaps I was overly vague.  Your repeated allusion to some sort of loophole is not what I was referring to.  I simply meant that it was normal for a closely held corporation to have respect in the United States according to (fundamental) rights.

There are no laws prohibiting it

Do you agree with " The Church " on everything?

Perhaps I was overly vague.  Your repeated allusion to some sort of loophole is not what I was referring to.  I simply meant that it was normal for a closely held corporation to have respect in the United States according to (fundamental) rights.

So, you're arguing that this particular legislation is purely redundant?

So basically, I have the right to believe these things.

And you don't believe I do.

There are no laws prohibiting it

there's nothing that says it's ok or even possible, unlike heterosexual marriages, so to include one but not the other can very easily be interpreted as one being possible/acceptable while the other is not. 

Which makes sense because of what the bible does say about homosexuality which is something you shouldn't do, or is that incorrect? 

Does the bible permit, endorse or promote homosexuality in the same way as heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage? 

Certainly if they were equally acceptable they would be right?  and yet....

By this standard, all wedding cakes celebrating marriages of divorcees ARE CONTRARY TO CHRISTIANITY.

"The Bible" doesn't prohibit polygamy, and appears to endorse it.

By this standard, all wedding cakes celebrating marriages of divorcees ARE CONTRARY TO CHRISTIANITY.

I've stated repeatedly that it is a "sin" but it is not worse or more evil than any of a raft of other "sins" that these same people ignore on a daily basis.

Do you believe that polygamy and monogamy are "equally acceptable"?  Well they would appear to be if you only look at "The Bible".

My religion certainly teaches that...

          (a)  Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;

          (b)  Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and

          (c)  Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

(a)  Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;

- Except when they are between one man and 1000 women.

          (b)  Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and

- Which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

is there any legal basis to the inconsistency charges you keep bring up?

(a)  Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; 

- Except when they are between one man and 1000 women.

He observes orthodoxy, not a Mormonism.

          (b)  Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and 

- Which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Pretty much, actually.  My perception is that the practice of homosexuality has recently been introduced into the subject of marriage through public persona.

a)  Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; 

- Except when they are between one man and 1000 women.

He observes orthodoxy, not a Mormonism.

Were Abraham, David, and Solomon all Mormons?

(b)  Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and 

- Which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Pretty much, actually.  My perception is that the practice of homosexuality has recently been introduced into the subject of marriage through public persona.

Do you think the cake man objects to making cakes for hetro couples who have engaged in pre-marital sex?

c)  Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

- This is nowhere to be found in "The Bible".

Based on these cases, a "religious objection" is not taken at face value.  The claim needs to be backed up with some verifiable evidence and consistency.

if a religion does not, has never and will not preform gay marriages that is consistency. 

your examples of individuals are more about if they actually practice or keep the religion to which they claim the ascribe to.

does the bible allow or condone homosexuality? 

afaik that's a big no, in which case homosexual marriage need not be mentioned, so this claim that "the bible doesn't say you can't" doesn't matter.  

A Church is basically a private club. They can do whatever they want.

The context here is regarding a business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

The same level of scrutiny would seem to apply to the cake man.  You can't just refuse service to homos because they are "sinners" and then cheerily serve every other "sinner" (divorcee, adulterer, murder, thief, tax cheat, Sabbath violator) that walks through your door.

"sinner" (divorcee, adulterer, murder, thief, tax cheat, Sabbath violator) that walks through your door.

This has never been proven.  What you are actually contending by throwing the real man under the bus to ignore what is actually happening is that people have to cater, divorce, adultery, theft, cheating on taxes, and violating the sabbath.  The people who are behind this obviously seek to destroy the Christian way of life.

"sinner" (divorcee, adulterer, murder, thief, tax cheat, Sabbath violator) that walks through your door.

This has never been proven.  What you are actually contending by throwing the real man under the bus to ignore what is actually happening is that people have to cater, divorce, adultery, theft, cheating on taxes, and violating the sabbath.  The people who are behind this obviously seek to destroy the Christian way of life.

What do you mean, "never been proven"?

The cake guy makes cakes for everyone EXCEPT the gays.  TONS of other "sinners" pay him good money every day.