I’m not suprised that there is no mention of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) in the referenced Obama guard dog Fx News article.
As mentioned in related threads, not only have the states amended the Constitution to specifically protect religious expression, evidenced by the 1st Amendment, but the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights.
So regardless if these Christian business are guilty of violating state laws that are interpreted as prohibiting discrimination against gay factions, these laws are unconstitutional, imo, (regardless what New Mexico’s pro-gay activist judges say) because they violate Section 1 of 14A by abridging constitutionally enumerated rights.
Sadly, these Christian business owners don’t seem to know their constitutional protections which doesn’t help things.
We can debate ourselves hoarse as to just why that is a fact of life, but not that it is.
In both the New Mexico photographers case, and the Colorado bakery case, there was no “illegal discrimination”.
The individuals who filed a suit were not denied the right to purchase an already made product or general public food or housing accommodation, due to their “whatever protected status”.
What the proprietors of both businesses declined to provide them, as is their right, was a special custom order artistic service.