The baker made the religious argument (it is a California case and has already been litigated). The baker agreed to bake a wedding cake UNTIL the baker found out that the couple was homosexual, then refused.
Do I think the case was a set up. Of course. That is the way the left works. Our reaction to it by trying to legislate always back fires.
The baker is not ‘free’ in any case. He cannot refuse to sell cakes to those he dislikes just because he dislikes them. I will sell bread to you but not him. The baker has already gotten business licenses and health inspections and all sorts of other government permission.
“Is a wedding cake from the baker of your choice now a fundamental right under the Constitution” I never made that claim. It is silliness to make that type of jump but no doubt it is coming.
she said it was too broad so make it more specific and “inclusive” of non-religious objections.
No person shall be required to participate or endorse sexual conduct which they find offensive to their conscience.
IOW narrow on just behavior. Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. This also includes polygamists, animal sex people, wife swappers, fetish people etc...
I never said you made that claim, and I agree that it’s coming. Actually, it’s already here. You cannot refuse service to someone, so they have a “right” to your service. The baker should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason.