Bingo.
And the courts, and a lot of people, feel that if you choose to open a business offering a service in the public arena, it is reasonable to prevent you from refusing that service to a number of often-persecuted ‘protected classes’.
There are exceptions even then - for example if your religious views are the sticking point, you could choose to make your operation overtly a religious one. Or cite freedom of speech if it is a question of that - I for one feel that businesses can (and should be able to) refuse to carry out an act of speech such as printing a particular slogan. It is debateable where you draw the line of what counts as such ‘speech’ - but I don’t think that taking stock photographs or baking a standard cake with no wording could possibly count as such.
First, there is no reason to couch this as a poorly constructed and badly framed “freedom of speech” argument, when there is an entrenched right to freedom of religion. Freedom of speech is not a stronger right than freedom of religion.
Second, if you go back to my original post, you’ll see that nowhere did I suggest that business owners should have an unfettered right to refuse to serve anyone they want, on any grounds. Rather, I said (and the courts in both Canada and the US have supported this as a legal proposition) that where a business owner can show that by providing that service they would be violating one of their own moral precepts, then they should not be forced to provide such a service. Note that the burden is on the business owner to demonstrate how providing the service violates the moral precept; it isn’t presumed by nature of the refusal that the refusal is valid.
Once the owner has shown that providing the service would violate a moral precept, it is then left to the court to determine if compelling the owner to provide that service is the least restrictive method of advancing their objectives. Here, let’s assume that the governmental objective is to discourage discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
If your answer to this dilemma is, “Provide the service or don’t run that business,” that is not the least restrictive manner of dealing with this conflict of rights. In fact, depriving someone of their livelihood or restricting them from pursuing a given livelihood is incredibly restrictive.
Some alternatives might be, they can refuse to provide the service, but must provide reasonable alternatives (which is the ethical obligations generally imposed on lawyers). Or that they can provide limited services which do not violate their moral precepts. If a bakery is indeed covered, for example, then the bakery could say that they will provide a pre-made cake, but no custom work, or that they will provide a cake, but not be responsible for any delivery and set up - I don’t personally feel a bakery would meet the requisite level of involvement, so I’m just using these as examples.
In Canada, the balance has generally been struck by looking at the nature of the business and the ongoing operation of the business to determine to what extent the ordinary operation of that business is linked to or would be impacted by the service provider’s faith. If, for instance, a bed and breakfast refuses to provide a room to a homosexual married couple on the grounds that they are a “Christian” organization and do not recognize same-sex marriages, but does not bother to screen heterosexual couples who might be staying to ensure they are married, it is an argument which is unlike to succeed. Essentially, you can be Christian, but don’t be hypocritical. A wedding planner, however, who only plans Christian weddings, reviews the faith requirements of each couple, and does refuse couples who are only being married civilly would likely not be required to provide such services.
I am less familiar with the case law in the US, only the broad principles at play, but I think the ruling in Hobby Lobby adequately demonstrates how these interests get balanced. There, the government tried to compel Hobby Lobby to pay for insurance that would allow its employees to access abortifacient contraceptives. The court found that they could not do so, because there were less restrictive means of meeting the government objectives (providing this coverage) than compelling the employer to violate a moral precept.
And I will say this again - I truly think that in this debate, both sides need to take a step back and step down. I think there are times that the “gay rights” activists shove these issues and denials in everyone’s face to make a point; it isn’t necessary. Just have some respect for the fact that even though your position may be legally recognized, that doesn’t mean everyone agrees with it. It doesn’t mean they think you’re evil or horrible or terrible - they just disagree. And, I think there are those in the Christian community who could stand to take a deep breath and acknowledge that same-sex marriage is legal and it isn’t fair to punish those who are simply availing themselves of their legal rights. Unless you really do feel you will be committing a mortal sin to bake a cake because two men asked you to bake it, rather than a man and a woman, just bake the cake. And if you do genuinely feel it is a mortal sin, then find a charitable way to say that and recommend a good alternative.
.