This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).
Such would set a precedent for refusing to serve an interfaith or interracial marriage.
So far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous gay-baiters who use the Bible as a pretext for opposing homosexuality in any form, has not had its capacity to condemn homosexuality curtailed.
I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple for religious reasons. But as a business owner, you do not have the right to deny someone a service on the basis of their sexuality.
This is no different than refusing to seat blacks at your lunch counter, or muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to transport customers who have alcohol in their luggage.
Everyone knows my position on religious freedom, but that extends to the absolute extremes. I have no problem with a Muslim cab driver doing that. Religious freedoms must be protected to the absolute extremes, even if it inconveniences others (i.e. a Mormon/Muslim/Adventist cashier not being willing to ring up alcohol or a Jewish/Muslim cashier not being willing to ring up pork). Maybe the business could work out an alternate arrangement that minimizes inconvienence, but no one should ever have to choose between their job and their religion. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, and the state should actively encourage citizens to have
a religion (out of Evangelical Christianity, devout Catholicism, Mormonism, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox/Hasidic Judaism, and non-radical but devout Islam- maybe there are one or two more that I am not familiar with that would do the same social good). For cultural and societal reasons, we should have a vested interest in virtually everyone practicing one of those religions. Other religions and secularism should not be illegal, but they should be highly discouraged verbally by our leaders.
Now, I would encourage everyone to convert to Christianity as a matter of faith, but for societal benefit, any faithful Abrahamic religion provides a solid moral code, and it is more important (
not spiritually, but for stopping our moral decay) that people have a religion than which religion.
