"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

I think there is a big difference between spreading bad publicity and using the force of the law.

If I'm an artist or artisan who does custom work or work to order then I can pick and choose which jobs I will accept and I don't have to give any reason for refusal.

Again, what if he decided "NO BLACKS" was his policy?  Then if a group of his local neighbors were disgusted by him, and decided to express this peaceably by demonstrating in front of his store every single day for discriminating against a fellow citizen, you would say he does not have the right to ask the government to intervene on his behalf?

Again, what if he decided "NO BLACKS" was his policy? 

What if you were in the culinary arts (a chef), you owned a restaurant, and decided to start kicking out people based on what you think is their sexual orientation?

I'm just wondering how we draw the line.

I wonder if the cake guy asked the people getting married whom he DID make cakes for, if they'd had premarital sex, or were living together. Wouldn't he HAVE to? In order to be consistent with the biblical objections, I mean, which is basically the crux of his argument.

totally different scenario, he's making what is on the menu, they are not asking for anything above and beyond that, nothing custom or unique to their situation.  

Let's say someone asked for a dish but wanted it gluten free, can he refuse or must he make it at gun point?  

Do you always have to give a reason for refusal?  is there a law that says so?

So as long as they're not asking for "extra cheese" or something, then he must make whatever's on the menu? Where do you draw THAT line? Can you order a hamburger no bun if you're not black, but if you're black, you have to have the bun?

Where does the idea of 'at gunpoint' ever enter what I'm saying? Gluten refusal is not analogous as often this is not a choosable option. He can refuse for any reason, but if he continually refuses gays and they infer "It's because we're two men here at a two top on Valentine's day," over and over and over, then he's discriminating. I think maybe the issue is that opening a business to the public would imply an agreement with said public to offer services in equal measure. Being unable to accomodate a gluten free request because you don't know how to make gluten free pasta or do not offer it in some way isn't the same as making a wedding cake for one member of the public because you approve of their private life, and not making the same wedding cake for another because you DON'T approve of their private life. 

Where do you stand on the question of making the same wedding cake for people who've had pre-marital sex?

That sounds like "guilty until proven innocent", and it's not helped by presumptively assuming the motive

Discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination on the basis of someone's race is illegal.

Do you figure that might be because it's way easier to say "This person is black" than it is to say "this person is gay"? I get that discrimination isn't illegal except on some bases, I'm just confused as to what the objection against protecting the minority group is if they're gay. 

And more to the point, how does a religious person get to claim religious expression ONLY if they're discriminating against gays, and not against people who are divorced, who eat shrimp, who have pre marital straight sex, who work on Sundays, etc etc etc. 

So as long as they're not asking for "extra cheese" or something, then he must make whatever's on the menu? Where do you draw THAT line? Can you order a hamburger no bun if you're not black, but if you're black, you have to have the bun? 

Where does the idea of 'at gunpoint' ever enter what I'm saying? Gluten refusal is not analogous as often this is not a choosable option.

If you're going to claim a "religious objection" you should be required to prove you are following every law with equal enthusiasm or explain why one teaching should be prioritized over another.

Again, what if he decided "NO BLACKS" was his policy?

I don't  believe that is how the first amendment works.

Besides that, protestant Christianity is far too diverse for this to be practical anyway.

Discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination on the basis of someone's race is illegal.

Secondly, the idea that all people who do not abide by your religion should not receive service would seem to practically necessitate a closed system of business to begin with.  

So in this case it is a matter of whether or not you respect the baker's right of free will

If you just say "Idonwanna", that's not a religious objection of "conscience".

If you only say "Idonwanna" to the gays (or one of the other 9 protected classes), then you might be dragged into court.

U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008).

Discrimination is not marrying someone of the same sex because they are the same sex as you.

Are you open-to-the-public?