Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with the law is that it includes private businesses. The bigger issue is not the Christian florist or Christian baker refusing to supply a gay couple's wedding. (this is awful and abhorrent but doesn't endanger anyone) The issue is the Christian pharmacy, the only one for 20 miles in a rural area of Indiana refusing to fill the prescription for Truvada because homosexuality is a sin and against his/her religion. The same pharmacy also refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills because birth control is against his or her religion. That is placing a substantial burden on others because of your religion. There are places around this country still served only by the small independent pharmacies and not CVS or Walgreen's. The Federal RFRA was for limiting the STATE encroaching on religious freedom not individuals or businesses claiming a right to religious freedom. The Indiana Law is written much more broadly than other state RFRA around the country.

Woman's right to birth control does not trump someone else's right to avoid participating in contracepting. They are competing rights and our government is very wise in not forcing either one on the other in most cases. We can be proud of our government - one of the few in the world - that makes a decent attempt at protecting EVERYONE from participating in something that is offensive to them. Obviously it can get extremely complicated but I think the effort is valiant. In the case of the birth control, a court could determine that in a particular individuals case, the extra 20 minute drive was INDEED too great a hardship, and assuming no other accommodations could be made (a mail order from the pharmacy in the next town over, perhaps?) force the sole pharmacist to fill the script. The law is written to cover what can be covered by it. Exceptions in court can always be made.

So you're saying that an individual should be forced to file suit in this case? Do you know how long it would take for a court-mandated exception to be issued in every instance? How does that work, exactly, when a woman wants Plan B?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

I don't think any customer is going to demand service from someone who is unqualified. But if they do, it's on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

The law says different. The USA is not a theocracy.

Actually, the law says we have the right to freedom of religion.

Yeah, but the law doesn't guarantee you the right to be a baker. You can believe what you want, but if you're going into public commerce, and that's your choice, you have to play by the rules.

The law guaranteed freedom to practice your religion. That means you should not be able to legally be forced to participated in an event that is outside your religious beliefs. Again, the baker (florist, etc) sold baked goods (flowers) to all sorts of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

And isn't the black person who won't go to a white hairdresser in a salon being racist?

(hint: No. She's choosing to go to a hairdresser who knows what to do with her hair - that person might BE white, but she has the right to choose).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue with the law is that it includes private businesses. The bigger issue is not the Christian florist or Christian baker refusing to supply a gay couple's wedding. (this is awful and abhorrent but doesn't endanger anyone) The issue is the Christian pharmacy, the only one for 20 miles in a rural area of Indiana refusing to fill the prescription for Truvada because homosexuality is a sin and against his/her religion. The same pharmacy also refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills because birth control is against his or her religion. That is placing a substantial burden on others because of your religion. There are places around this country still served only by the small independent pharmacies and not CVS or Walgreen's. The Federal RFRA was for limiting the STATE encroaching on religious freedom not individuals or businesses claiming a right to religious freedom. The Indiana Law is written much more broadly than other state RFRA around the country.

With a legal prescription, those meds and others are available through the mail. In fact, Obamacare forced my friend to get her meds that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

Well, if she wants to be able to cut black hair well, she should study and learn. If her clients like the way she cuts their hair, more power to them. Maybe women who don't like how she cuts hair still come in for a blow-out. But that's not the same as refusing to serve black people. She's offering the same services to everyone.

Dude, which ivory tower are you from? Besides cutting, girls have their hair styled. Do you have a clue about how much effort and skill goes into styling natural black hair? Doesn't sound like you do. A person without specific skills is not going to attempt something like this. And I'd like to see you make someone acquire a skill they may not be interested in.

The difference is that if the hair stylist says, "Listen, I don't get many black customers and I don't have a lot of experience with hair like yours. I'm afraid I'm going to do it badly," and the customer says, "That's ok, I'd like a haircut anyway," the stylist doesn't get to say, "I don't serve black customers."

There's nothing forcing the stylist to acquire those skills, all they have to do is offer the same services to all customers.

And neither does the baker. Again, it's the PARTICIPATION in the event that's what's being covered here. Y'all don't really seem to get that concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

"Participating in the wedding?" Oh, please. By that calculus, the chinese factory that made the lace for the veil is also "participating in the wedding"

But you still didn't answer the question. Where exactly in the Bible does it say the baker cannot do business with them? And, since we are talking about Christians here, where, specifically, in the Gospels does it say that?

If the veil is special-ordered or custom made, you are talking about shop owner participation. Off the shelf? Nope

Huh. My Bible doesn't seem to have that clause. Did yours come with some kind of special Appendix of random new rules for what does and doesn't constitute "participation?"

Your bible has the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' line, and talks extensively of marriage.

You're aware that in your attempt to protect the rights of your chosen group, you are trampling on the rights of another group, right? Is that OK? Why is your chosen group more important and/or more worthy that another?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

The law says different. The USA is not a theocracy.

Actually, the law says we have the right to freedom of religion.

Yeah, but the law doesn't guarantee you the right to be a baker. You can believe what you want, but if you're going into public commerce, and that's your choice, you have to play by the rules.

The law guaranteed freedom to practice your religion. That means you should not be able to legally be forced to participated in an event that is outside your religious beliefs. Again, the baker (florist, etc) sold baked goods (flowers) to all sorts of people.

Who is forcing you to become a baker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

"Participating in the wedding?" Oh, please. By that calculus, the chinese factory that made the lace for the veil is also "participating in the wedding"

But you still didn't answer the question. Where exactly in the Bible does it say the baker cannot do business with them? And, since we are talking about Christians here, where, specifically, in the Gospels does it say that?

If the veil is special-ordered or custom made, you are talking about shop owner participation. Off the shelf? Nope

Huh. My Bible doesn't seem to have that clause. Did yours come with some kind of special Appendix of random new rules for what does and doesn't constitute "participation?"

Your bible has the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' line, and talks extensively of marriage.

You're aware that in your attempt to protect the rights of your chosen group, you are trampling on the rights of another group, right? Is that OK? Why is your chosen group more important and/or more worthy that another?

You mean the "right" to be a baker? Or a florist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

Well, if she wants to be able to cut black hair well, she should study and learn. If her clients like the way she cuts their hair, more power to them. Maybe women who don't like how she cuts hair still come in for a blow-out. But that's not the same as refusing to serve black people. She's offering the same services to everyone.

Dude, which ivory tower are you from? Besides cutting, girls have their hair styled. Do you have a clue about how much effort and skill goes into styling natural black hair? Doesn't sound like you do. A person without specific skills is not going to attempt something like this. And I'd like to see you make someone acquire a skill they may not be interested in.

The difference is that if the hair stylist says, "Listen, I don't get many black customers and I don't have a lot of experience with hair like yours. I'm afraid I'm going to do it badly," and the customer says, "That's ok, I'd like a haircut anyway," the stylist doesn't get to say, "I don't serve black customers."

There's nothing forcing the stylist to acquire those skills, all they have to do is offer the same services to all customers.

And neither does the baker. Again, it's the PARTICIPATION in the event that's what's being covered here. Y'all don't really seem to get that concept.

Neither does the baker...what? Your post doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with the law is that it includes private businesses. The bigger issue is not the Christian florist or Christian baker refusing to supply a gay couple's wedding. (this is awful and abhorrent but doesn't endanger anyone) The issue is the Christian pharmacy, the only one for 20 miles in a rural area of Indiana refusing to fill the prescription for Truvada because homosexuality is a sin and against his/her religion. The same pharmacy also refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills because birth control is against his or her religion. That is placing a substantial burden on others because of your religion. There are places around this country still served only by the small independent pharmacies and not CVS or Walgreen's. The Federal RFRA was for limiting the STATE encroaching on religious freedom not individuals or businesses claiming a right to religious freedom. The Indiana Law is written much more broadly than other state RFRA around the country.

Woman's right to birth control does not trump someone else's right to avoid participating in contracepting. They are competing rights and our government is very wise in not forcing either one on the other in most cases. We can be proud of our government - one of the few in the world - that makes a decent attempt at protecting EVERYONE from participating in something that is offensive to them. Obviously it can get extremely complicated but I think the effort is valiant. In the case of the birth control, a court could determine that in a particular individuals case, the extra 20 minute drive was INDEED too great a hardship, and assuming no other accommodations could be made (a mail order from the pharmacy in the next town over, perhaps?) force the sole pharmacist to fill the script. The law is written to cover what can be covered by it. Exceptions in court can always be made.

So you're saying that an individual should be forced to file suit in this case? Do you know how long it would take for a court-mandated exception to be issued in every instance? How does that work, exactly, when a woman wants Plan B?

Given Plan B is over the counter, I would say any woman who fears not having it when she needs it should click on the link below and have it in their medicine cabinet:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_6?url=search-alias%3Dhpc&field-keywords=plan+b&sprefix=plan+b%2Caps%2C251

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with the law is that it includes private businesses. The bigger issue is not the Christian florist or Christian baker refusing to supply a gay couple's wedding. (this is awful and abhorrent but doesn't endanger anyone) The issue is the Christian pharmacy, the only one for 20 miles in a rural area of Indiana refusing to fill the prescription for Truvada because homosexuality is a sin and against his/her religion. The same pharmacy also refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills because birth control is against his or her religion. That is placing a substantial burden on others because of your religion. There are places around this country still served only by the small independent pharmacies and not CVS or Walgreen's. The Federal RFRA was for limiting the STATE encroaching on religious freedom not individuals or businesses claiming a right to religious freedom. The Indiana Law is written much more broadly than other state RFRA around the country.

Woman's right to birth control does not trump someone else's right to avoid participating in contracepting. They are competing rights and our government is very wise in not forcing either one on the other in most cases. We can be proud of our government - one of the few in the world - that makes a decent attempt at protecting EVERYONE from participating in something that is offensive to them. Obviously it can get extremely complicated but I think the effort is valiant. In the case of the birth control, a court could determine that in a particular individuals case, the extra 20 minute drive was INDEED too great a hardship, and assuming no other accommodations could be made (a mail order from the pharmacy in the next town over, perhaps?) force the sole pharmacist to fill the script. The law is written to cover what can be covered by it. Exceptions in court can always be made.

So you're saying that an individual should be forced to file suit in this case? Do you know how long it would take for a court-mandated exception to be issued in every instance? How does that work, exactly, when a woman wants Plan B?

Given Plan B is over the counter, I would say any woman who fears not having it when she needs it should click on the link below and have it in their medicine cabinet:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_6?url=search-alias%3Dhpc&field-keywords=plan+b&sprefix=plan+b%2Caps%2C251

And women who want to go on the pill should wait the months/years it would take for the judge to rule?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

The law says different. The USA is not a theocracy.

Actually, the law says we have the right to freedom of religion.

Yeah, but the law doesn't guarantee you the right to be a baker. You can believe what you want, but if you're going into public commerce, and that's your choice, you have to play by the rules.

The law guaranteed freedom to practice your religion. That means you should not be able to legally be forced to participated in an event that is outside your religious beliefs. Again, the baker (florist, etc) sold baked goods (flowers) to all sorts of people.

Who is forcing you to become a baker?

You are missing the point - get familiar with the nuances of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

"Participating in the wedding?" Oh, please. By that calculus, the chinese factory that made the lace for the veil is also "participating in the wedding"

But you still didn't answer the question. Where exactly in the Bible does it say the baker cannot do business with them? And, since we are talking about Christians here, where, specifically, in the Gospels does it say that?

If the veil is special-ordered or custom made, you are talking about shop owner participation. Off the shelf? Nope

Huh. My Bible doesn't seem to have that clause. Did yours come with some kind of special Appendix of random new rules for what does and doesn't constitute "participation?"

Your bible has the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' line, and talks extensively of marriage.

You're aware that in your attempt to protect the rights of your chosen group, you are trampling on the rights of another group, right? Is that OK? Why is your chosen group more important and/or more worthy that another?

You mean the "right" to be a baker? Or a florist?

Should a Halal food establishment be required to cater a Jewish wedding? Can the Jew sue the Muslims if they refuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

The law says different. The USA is not a theocracy.

Actually, the law says we have the right to freedom of religion.

Yeah, but the law doesn't guarantee you the right to be a baker. You can believe what you want, but if you're going into public commerce, and that's your choice, you have to play by the rules.

The law guaranteed freedom to practice your religion. That means you should not be able to legally be forced to participated in an event that is outside your religious beliefs. Again, the baker (florist, etc) sold baked goods (flowers) to all sorts of people.

Who is forcing you to become a baker?

You are missing the point - get familiar with the nuances of the law.

Cute. Explain then, to me, the point that I have missed.

You are claiming that Christians have a right to refuse to participate, in any way, in a gay wedding. I agree with you, however, I believe that they exercise that right by declining to start a public business offering wedding-related services. You appear to be arguing that they have a right to be florists. I don't see where that right comes from. Illuminate me.