People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

I believe it is possible for me to convince you of this. You have to again understand we're talking about law. Not a specific "should they be able to?" In a one-off situation I would completely agree with you. The fact is though, when something like this is tried in our legal system, the 1 court decision effects how laws are passed everywhere within the state, or within the country depending on how far up it goes. Being that a similar situation is in the Supreme Court with a judgement expected next month, and that the topic for the debate speaks of the law, you HAVE to view this through a legal precedence lens. Like I said in the first post, you MUST read it not as a specific situation, but as a general situation. You have cherry picked the best possible example (with a bit of help from me) when you cite the Photographer for the wedding, but in a legal view it HAS to be seen as a general situation. That means that Businesses (not people) can discriminate against others. We live in a world with thousands of religions. [1] We have to weigh a general well-treatment of civilians by businesses over the ability for any business to literally invent a religion on the spot just so they may deny service to whomever they please. You have not addressed this point. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. If I did not, I completely apologize, and would hope you'd address it in a comment on this debate. Nothing stops people from inventing a religion or a religious belief on the spot. We have no way of proving in court that our irrational, unprovable faith-based beliefs are legitimate. Therefore, we can get away with any form of discrimination if this law passes. Possibly even if that results in the death of someone. Because what is the real death of a person when weighed against one's soul (even if there are thousands of religions and more than likely only one could be true) The only religious exception I could possibly understand to a business being able to deny people service is if they submitted a document on record with the court listing their complete and total beliefs and who they would serve and whom they would not. Again, you're saying that they weigh all sin equally, but I see no cake makers, florists, and photographers discriminating against those who have killed, those who have committed adultery, those who worship other gods, et cetera. I said previously, there is no biblical reason to weigh the "sin" of being gay over any of the other sins, particularly those listed as "commandments" directly from Moses and literally to them the most direct word from God they've ever received (Christians) at least. This is thinly, THINLY veiled discrimination for no reason other than hate. If you cite me one business who forces background checks on individuals to make sure they follow literally every belief they have before they will serve them, I would be mildly inclined to allow an exception, but....they can and will change their beliefs at the drop of a hat. Nothing stops them from doing so. If you open the door to respect religious freedoms when it comes to discrimination against civilians you open the door for everyone. The world immediately becomes worse off for it. You at BEST risk all of that for a minority of a minority of a minority of a minority to not have a mildly bad day, and you already have my agreement that they should be allowed to inform their customers of their beliefs, refer them to another company, or even allow them to contract the work out under their company's name! They can even refuse all profits from the endeavor, or donate them to a pray-the-gay-away clinic of their choice. You cannot find someone more moderate than I am on this decision. I understand the consequences of the action you have proposed. I have suggested a handful of ways to mitigate the damage nearly completely, if not 100%. I have agreed that if this was not a legal question I would completely agree with you. You have conceded that this effects a minuscule portion of the population and even that portion doesn't all believe they will go to hell over this. Most of them will pray to God and say they were forced, and to forgive them and they will completely forget the situation within a week. Compare this to the hundreds of scenarios of people needing a service and not being able to get it when they need it, causing them suffering and potentially leading to the suffering or deaths of others. Who is to say with this door opened a Christian clinic, hospital, ambulance, firefighter, police officer, et cetera could not deny their necessary services to those who need them or they will be injured and potentially die. "Religious Freedom" is largely, and has largely in the past been used to justify terrible beliefs without any consistency or true belief on the part of those citing it. I do not believe anyone who understands the ramifications of allowing "religious freedom" to run rampant across our country could possibly value them over the rights of the citizenry. In one society you have thousands of religions, with thousands of more being created on the drop of a hat being used to spread as much unchecked suffering as they'd like with an ironclad supreme-court approved excuse, in the other society you have a tiny handful of the population who have to suffer for a day, maybe a week, and maybe they'll glance back occasionally in disgust. Plus, the ways I've suggested to mitigate this. I do not judge these scales to be even. It is a landslide on one side and a bag of potatoes on the other. Now the judgement is up to you. --- [1] - https://www.reference.com...