"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

You might be making a logical error here.  That is, what you are referring to as marriage may not be what English speakers (Christians) referred to since the origins of the word till around the 21st century.  Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.

Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.

So you're basically saying we agree.

And there is also an equally long history of objecting to eating bacon-cheeseburgers and marrying a divorcee.

lol you are really trying hard here I see that but come on LOL

you don't ask to enter into a mutual contract to have a person eat bacon-cheeseburgers do you?

so only your interpretation matters then, because you believe theirs is incorrect?

because, as you claim, they allow for other sins or things you think are prohibited in the bible that they can't object to homosexuality, it's all or nothing for you, correct?

...with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall.

you can have a ceremony without being legally married or be legally married without a ceremony, they can be exclusive.

...with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall.

Just like the King Solomon, blessed by the "YHWH" with 1,000 WIVES AND CONCUBINES.

we are going in circles here, how can I explain the difference between a ceremony,event,act (verbs) and skin color (noun) in any more of a plain way than I already have?

Just like the King Solomon, blessed by the "YHWH" with 1,000 WIVES AND CONCUBINES.

Yeah, there could still be Jewish arguments on that subject.  In Christianity something like that is considered as a consequence of the fall and/or policy of specific historical context, and no longer institutionally valid in any circumstance.

Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".

...they could have purchased a cake from the case, his creativity, skill, artistic interpretation, his physical labor for which someone wishes to enter into a contract with him for is at his discretion.

(IFF) the "objection" is based on the idea that "I don't want to endorse sin" (THEN) there should be a reason to single out that one sin.

They've offered no attempt to explain why they refuse to make a cake for homos (a sin) and yet have no problem making a cake for divorcees (also a sin).

All of the sins that have the same penalties are the same priority.

(IFF) homo marriage is claimed to be a higher priority than other sins (THEN) there must be some supporting evidence for this claim.

For example, if you suppose The Seven Deadly Sins are "the worst of the worst", then pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth should all be treated equally, (OR) perhaps in order of appearance with Pride being the Worst.

Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".

The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.  I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.

No the difference between skin color and sexual orientation. If one can object to a ceremony/act/verb based on sexual orientation then one could also object based on skin color. What is the difference?

First of all, the cake guy does this all day long, this is not "forced labor".

The objection was based on their sexual orientation alone, not that they were asking for a ridiculous cake.

Can we force a restaurant employee to make a milkshake or a cappuccino for a minority they hate?  Yes.

The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.

Even so, you still have to show the rule.

Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".

The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.  I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.

Even so, you still have to show the rule.

If your flavor of religion prioritizes certain documents over others, that's fine.

Pick whatever document you wish, but you still need to show the text that says something interpret-able as "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners".

There is no such rule in Christianity. 

Last time I told you that you were presuming people's beliefs you said something like "they say its based on religion" but what you are actually doing is saying that their conscience can be assumed to align with your own presumptions like "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners" without proof.

Even so, you still have to show the rule.

but again I believe many of these things are open to interpretation are they not?  If they are, does the individual have the right to their interpretation?  Who decides if the individual's interpretation is wrong and who's is correct?  If you think they are wrong do you think it's ok to make them accept yours?

What if gay people are jeopardizing religious peoples afterlife.  Unfortunately this has to be considered right?

quite simply you don't have to do an action, the verbs I listed, you can not change your skin color.  There are very religious gay people who believe gay sex is a sin so they don't have it (action/verb)

you also don't have to get married, totally voluntary and optional, skin color, not so much.

I hope that explains the difference that I see.

Show me the text.

I'll be extremely generous.

I'll even accept your choice of non-canonical scholarly "authoritative" biblical analysis.

You're making a naked appeal to ignorance.

By that rational getting married need not involve sex (though like being homosexual it generally does) so the bakers objection to a non sex act is still quite puzzling.