“You keep saying this as if mere repetition of the same meme will somehow convince me you are right.” I know I won’t convince you, but this case isn’t about you, it about the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.<quoted text>Yhat makes his excuse special?
“Your responses are form over function.” I’m sorry? Mine are? That’s funny.
“The only compelling governmental interest in the goings on of a place of worship and its personnel is the health and safety of them and those around them. Doctrinal and other internal matters, none of their business, unless they act in a way that limits that right (their charities putting tax dollars to work for example). Individuals who share that doctrine and aren't in that place of worship or in their own home but the public square don't get that same level of scrutiny when it comes to evaluating whether your right to practice what you preach, because the government has more interests in your actions than theirs.” That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Are you not gay even in the public square? How do you explain the Gay Pride Parade? Such a family friend thing to attend right? Yet government allows that, or are you saying we should make it illegal because “public square don't get that same level of scrutiny when it comes to evaluating whether your right to practice what you preach”?
“We are to know better than walk into such a place of worship or your own home and claim a right to be there, but this was a bakery near a neighborhood gayer than most, that didn't have a God says no to same sex marriage and so do I sign in the window. They have a constitutionally recognized right to be in his establishment that they don't in his place of worship or his home. They also have a constitutionally recognized right to any and all services available from that establishment that they don't in his place of worship or his own home. Getting it now?”
I get that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and it applies ESPECIALLY in the “public square”.
“Whether it is his actual belief or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he broke a constitutionally valid law.” He broke a bad law in this case and the Constitution protects him.
“If it is going to become relevant to the question, isn't the question of the depth of of those beliefs relevant as well?” Why would the “depth of of those beliefs relevant” and how do you intend to prove “depth of of those beliefs”?
“I've met Christians and other folk of faith whose beliefs are miles wide, but you could wade through without worrying about getting your ankles wet. The law labels him a criminal, his beliefs are nothing more than his excuse.” How do you know this?
“Non-believers and those who believe but do not invoke their right to who commit the same act, also criminals, regardless of their excuse, what makes his excuse special?” America is special enough to allow freedom.