Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage

[vooke]

MoonKi and the false prophet may defend this gross violation of the religious right of Mrs Kim Davis from a legal standpoint which even then is on shaky ground. However, it is morally indefensible to throw a christian in to jail for refusing to be party to a gay marriage. Just because the SCOTUS thinks its ok for two men to sleep with one another does not make it right. Again, asking Kim Davis to reign is unfair because it amounts to tyranny by the gay lobby and the judiciary. It's not different from the Weston example. Just because Jubilee is in power and the high priest can get all the legal documents does not make it right to grab a school playground.

Nuff Sed,
Her 'rights' ended the moment she took up the job with the government. Imagine an SDA buffoon not too different from you refusing to sell you beef because it's against their conscience seeing they are vegans according to Saint Ellen White inspired BS  yet they work in a butchery.

[vooke]

Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.

If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.

Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen:  no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it

23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'

Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years

If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment.  I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God.  These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.

SDA has an interesting history.  More interesting than I would have thought.  I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.

homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?

Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.

If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.

Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen:  no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it

23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'

Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years

If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment.  I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God.  These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.

SDA has an interesting history.  More interesting than I would have thought.  I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.

homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?

Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?

If you consider Christ's greatest commandment.  You see that the religion gives her choices.  She just has to serve them with love.  They are not asking her to participate.

If her conscience is harmed by obeying the law she can ask for forgiveness or go for confession.  The law does not forbid her from doing that. 

[MOON Ki]

Nonsense. What you are doing is substituting your own understanding of what it means to take part in a sinful activity for the Christians involved and their religion.

The quotations are not my "understanding"; they belong to those who determined that she had broken Colorado law.   Given some of the great evils that have been carried out  has been done on the basis of what  some "Christians understand to be a sinful activity"---and I have noted that the "Catholic Church" has been a "leader", with popes personally committing truly heinous evils---I am not going to buy general arguments about  what blah blah blah means to blah blah blah.

You also confuse your own views with those of all who call themselves "Christians" when you write such things as "what it means for ... Christians".   As examples:

* The Presbyterian Church (USA) last year changed its definition of marriage to allow its pastors to marry same-sex couples.

* United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in Canada, is led by an openly gay person who is married to another gay person.

* Take a look at the Anglicans.

And so on, and so forth.

Clearly there are other "Christians" with different views of  what anything means for "Christians".

His problem is the event NOT the PEOPLE involved in the event. 

Unfortunately for the bakers, the law does not say that people may unlawfully discriminate in instances of their choosing.

Here is what the first judge said:

That seems clear enough.   Which part of it do you find problematic? 

Far from the idea that they were treated unfairly, some excellent requirements were also made of them---orders to

I think it is good for them to be trained to understand and obey the law.   In the long run, they will probably be grateful for that.


Here it is:

There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws.  That can only be good.   People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.    That too can only be good.

[vooke]

Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.

If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.

Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen:  no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it

23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'

Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years

If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment.  I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God.  These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.

SDA has an interesting history.  More interesting than I would have thought.  I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.

homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?

Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?

If you consider Christ's greatest commandment.  You see that the religion gives her choices.  She just has to serve them with love.  They are not asking her to participate.

If her conscience is harmed by obeying the law she can ask for forgiveness or go for confession.  The law does not forbid her from doing that. 

Her reaction has nothing to do with love or hate however you spin it.
Love condemns the sin and warns the sinner of the consequences of sin. That's why we evangelize. She was not hired to evangelize, but to issue certificates. If she feels issuing certificates is participating in unions contrary to her convictions, quit would have been it.

The fact that one is forgiveness is no license to sin more. That's impunity especially when one knows it is sin. There is no forgiveness for abusing the grace of God but a fearful judgement

[MOON Ki]

If you consider Christ's greatest commandment.  You see that the religion gives her choices.  She just has to serve them with love.  They are not asking her to participate.

Are we not big enough, loving enough, and tolerant enough to find a way to accommodate my deeply held religious convictionsothers from issuing marriage licenses.   

[Bella]

Nonsense. What you are doing is substituting your own understanding of what it means to take part in a sinful activity for the Christians involved and their religion.

The quotations are not my "understanding"; they belong to those who determined that she had broken Colorado law.   Given some of the great evils that have been carried out  has been done on the basis of what  some "Christians understand to be a sinful activity"---and I have noted that the "Catholic Church" has been a "leader", with popes personally committing tru  ly heinous evils---I am not going to buy general arguments about  what blah blah blah means to blah blah blah.

Nonsense is nonsense,  even if it is said by a judge. And considering that my critique is of that very reasoning,  it is hardly a response to come back with "I'm not saying it,  the judge is".  Why are you quoting him unless you want to associate his words with your own views? Citing him to support your views and then claiming "its not me" is rather childish. What a cop out. If you can't defend your own arguments on the basis of their own merits,  best not to make them,  unless your sole argument is that anything courts say is right,  including that owning slaves is "a civil right. " And you are arguing with me,  not the Catholic church,  enough with the side shows already.

You also confuse your own views with those of all who call themselves "Christians" when you write such things as "what it means for ... Christians".   As examples:

* The Presbyterian Church (USA) last year changed its definition of marriage to allow its pastors to marry same-sex couples.

* United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in Canada, is led by an openly gay person who is married to another gay person.

* Take a look at the Anglicans.

And so on, and so forth.

Clearly there are other "Christians" with different views of  what anything means for "Christians".

  I believe reading glasses are in order. I said you were substituting your own views for that of the Christians INVOLVED and their religion. How about you find me a member of these irrelevant (to this discussion) groups you've mentioned who is forced to support what his religion forbids,  before you add more irrelevancies to this discussion?  You might as well tell a Jew that Judaism allows pork by pointing at Christian churches that teach pork is OK to eat. Why on earth would groups who teach totally different things matter in a discussion about the consciences of people belonging to groups that teach different? 

His problem is the event NOT the PEOPLE involved in the event. 

Unfortunately for the bakers, the law does not say that people may unlawfully discriminate in instances of their choosing.

Here is what the first judge said:

That seems clear enough.   Which part of it do you find problematic? 

Far from the idea that they were treated unfairly, some excellent requirements were also made of them---orders to

I think it is good for them to be trained to understand and obey the law.   In the long run, they will probably be grateful for that.


Here it is:

There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws.  That can only be good.   People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.    That too can only be good.

More of the same "it's true because some judge says it is true." You and this judge think that the person no longer has a right to view the sexual union of two men as sinful, so that he would refuse to be part of that event in any capacity. It is pure nonsense to say that someone discriminates against gay people for being gay on one occasion only. When I meet people who dislike me for being black, it is not events they object to but ME, and guess what? It does NOT "jump occasions", it is there all around, as long as the person is black. They wont serve them, the event notwithstanding. If someone discriminates against people simply for being gay then they discriminate them for being gay, they wont want them in their premises, as customers or employees. The idea that the refusal to be part of the celebration of a sinful event is the same as rejecting the person as a person is false. I can love my drug-addicted relative and refuse to support his drug parties. According to you, that is discrimination towards him as a person and not simply my refusal to support what I regard as harmful/bad/sinful behavior. According to you, the only way to love my drug-addicted relative is to agree with his use of drugs. Like RP says, thinking people have their limits!

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.

If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.

Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen:  no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it

23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'

Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years

If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment.  I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God.  These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.

SDA has an interesting history.  More interesting than I would have thought.  I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.

homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?

Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?

If you consider Christ's greatest commandment.  You see that the religion gives her choices.  She just has to serve them with love.  They are not asking her to participate.

If her conscience is harmed by obeying the law she can ask for forgiveness or go for confession.  The law does not forbid her from doing that. 

Her reaction has nothing to do with love or hate however you spin it.
Love condemns the sin and warns the sinner of the consequences of sin. That's why we evangelize. She was not hired to evangelize, but to issue certificates. If she feels issuing certificates is participating in unions contrary to her convictions, quit would have been it.

The fact that one is forgiveness is no license to sin more. That's impunity especially when one knows it is sin. There is no forgiveness for abusing the grace of God but a fearful judgement

I think she can still do her job and reconcile it with Christ's teaching.  He said love your neighbor as you love yourself.  I interpret it to mean just that.  If he wanted you you to judge others, he would have said so.

[Bella]

Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?

[MOON Ki]

Bella:

Here is a summary:

Here is what the first judge said:

That seems clear enough.   Which part of it do you find problematic? 

Here it is:

There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws.  That can only be good.   People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.   

That's pretty much it.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?

Bella,

I am just going by what I understand about Christianity.  If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.

The issue is really about tolerance.  Tolerance does not equate to endorsement.  If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs.  But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same.  Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant.  That is something I consider to be going for it.  She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.

To consider an extreme example.  For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God.  Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc?  Probably not.  And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.

It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.

[Bella]

Bella:

Here is a summary:

Here is what the first judge said:

That seems clear enough.   Which part of it do you find problematic? 

Here it is:

There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws.  That can only be good.   People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.   

That's pretty much it.

Moon Ki, here it is: Refusal to participate in an event celebrating an anti-value is not the same as refusing to serve gay people as people. Seems clear enough! What part of that do you find problematic?

[MOON Ki]

Moon Ki, here it is: Refusal to participate in an event celebrating an anti-value is not the same as refusing to serve gay people as people. Seems clear enough! What part of that do you find problematic?

The part where he was supposedly asked to participate in a wedding or celebration.

[Bella]

Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?

Bella,

I am just going by what I understand about Christianity.  If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.

The issue is really about tolerance.  Tolerance does not equate to endorsement.  If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs.  But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same.  Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant.  That is something I consider to be going for it.  She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.

To consider an extreme example.  For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God.  Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc?  Probably not.  And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.

It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.

No it is not. Tolerance would be this: The gay person gets their wedding, the religious person gets to not take part. No one here loses their rights. What you think is tolerance instead looks like this: The state determines for everyone that gay marriage is moral, and then the religious person loses their right to consider it immoral and not take part in it themselves. Now, THAT looks like a state religion to me, not limits to religion. The human sacrifice involves taking away another's right to life, it's more like abortion than what the baker is asking for. No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here. Instead, what seems like a balance is that unless the service here can be found nowhere else, the gay couple can find the gazillion other bakers happy to take their money, and leave the one christian woman who does not want to help celebrate sin alone. That is the limits of religion. Not just running roughshod over people's moral objections in the name of protecting others whose so-called rights aren't even in danger.

[Bella]

Moon Ki, here it is: Refusal to participate in an event celebrating an anti-value is not the same as refusing to serve gay people as people. Seems clear enough! What part of that do you find problematic?

The part where he was supposedly asked to participate in a wedding or celebration.

They were asked to support a gay wedding with their own labour. Is that false?

[MOON Ki]

No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here.

Not really.  If, for example, you go to renew your driver's license, you are actually entitled to the labour of the people who work in that office.

They were asked to support a gay wedding with their own labour. Is that false?

Unfortunately for the bakers, "my own labour"----or my own anything, for that matter---is not considered an acceptable excuse for unlawful discrimination.   

More importantly, the idea that by baking a cake they would, as you put it, "participate in an event celebrating an anti-value" doesn't get very far.    You might as well argue that who sell things that are then used to commit crimes are participating in the crimes and should be held liable.   Similarly, if you were to buy some whips and chains for a session of S & M with your loved one, it could hardly be said that the maker or the seller of the whips and chains would be participating in your "anti-value event".

I know that it "pains" many, but I have to repeat it:

There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws.  That can only be good.   People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?

Bella,

I am just going by what I understand about Christianity.  If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.

The issue is really about tolerance.  Tolerance does not equate to endorsement.  If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs.  But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same.  Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant.  That is something I consider to be going for it.  She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.

To consider an extreme example.  For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God.  Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc?  Probably not.  And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.

It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.

No it is not. Tolerance would be this: The gay person gets their wedding, the religious person gets to not take part. No one here loses their rights. What you think is tolerance instead looks like this: The state determines for everyone that gay marriage is moral, and then the religious person loses their right to consider it immoral and not take part in it themselves. Now, THAT looks like a state religion to me, not limits to religion. The human sacrifice involves taking away another's right to life, it's more like abortion than what the baker is asking for. No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here. Instead, what seems like a balance is that unless the service here can be found nowhere else, the gay couple can find the gazillion other bakers happy to take their money, and leave the one christian woman who does not want to help celebrate sin alone. That is the limits of religion. Not just running roughshod over people's moral objections in the name of protecting others whose so-called rights aren't even in danger.

The morality of the wedding is up to the individual to decide.  I think the state is just ensuring that people are served equally within those constraints of the law; don't pick out gays, blacks, immigrants etc for different treatment on the basis of those attributes. 

In other words, the bakery is free to find other excuses not serve them.  Maybe they are closed for lunch break every time the couple shows up.  Or there is just no one to take their order.  Something legitimate.  Sexual orientation of the customer is not a legitimate reason. 

The baker was asking to be allowed to limit the rights of the gay couple, illegally.  I think that is what the judgement was based on.  It was not a judgment on their rights to hold their beliefs, except in so far as they infringe on what the court determined was a more important right.  It's a tough call for the judge to make, but I think they made the right one.

[Bella]

No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here.

Not really.  If, for example, you go to renew your driver's license, you are actually entitled to the labour of the people who work in that office.

They were asked to support a gay wedding with their own labour. Is that false?

Unfortunately for the bakers, "my own labour"----or my own anything, for that matter---is not considered an acceptable excuse for unlawful discrimination.   

More importantly, the idea that by baking a cake they would, as you put it, "participate in an event celebrating an anti-value" doesn't get very far.    You might as well argue that who sell things that are then used to commit crimes are participating in the crimes and should be held liable.   

I know that it "pains" many, but I have to repeat it:

There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws.  That can only be good.   People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.

Silly analogies. The person who issues licences has already FREELY contracted to carry out the Labour. You are supporting FORCING people into contracts.  The weapons can be used for good, not just crimes. Selling them when KNOWING they are to be used for a specific crime IS supporting that crime,  way to shoot yourself in the foot with examples not fully thought through!!!

[Bella]

Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?

Bella,

I am just going by what I understand about Christianity.  If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.

The issue is really about tolerance.  Tolerance does not equate to endorsement.  If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs.  But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same.  Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant.  That is something I consider to be going for it.  She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.

To consider an extreme example.  For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God.  Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc?  Probably not.  And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.

It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.

No it is not. Tolerance would be this: The gay person gets their wedding, the religious person gets to not take part. No one here loses their rights. What you think is tolerance instead looks like this: The state determines for everyone that gay marriage is moral, and then the religious person loses their right to consider it immoral and not take part in it themselves. Now, THAT looks like a state religion to me, not limits to religion. The human sacrifice involves taking away another's right to life, it's more like abortion than what the baker is asking for. No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here. Instead, what seems like a balance is that unless the service here can be found nowhere else, the gay couple can find the gazillion other bakers happy to take their money, and leave the one christian woman who does not want to help celebrate sin alone. That is the limits of religion. Not just running roughshod over people's moral objections in the name of protecting others whose so-called rights aren't even in danger.

The morality of the wedding is up to the individual to decide.  I think the state is just ensuring that people are served equally within those constraints of the law; don't pick out gays, blacks, immigrants etc for different treatment on the basis of those attributes. 

In other words, the bakery is free to find other excuses not serve them.  Maybe they are closed for lunch break every time the couple shows up.  Or there is just no one to take their order.  Something legitimate.  Sexual orientation of the customer is not a legitimate reason. 

The baker was asking to be allowed to limit the rights of the gay couple, illegally.  I think that is what the judgement was based on.  It was not a judgment on their rights to hold their beliefs, except in so far as they infringe on what the court determined was a more important right.  It's a tough call for the judge to make, but I think they made the right one.

The baker did not refuse to serve them on the basis of their orientation. If that was true,  she would have shut them out of her business years ago. What she refused to do was play a part in a wedding that is sinful.

[MOON Ki]

Silly analogies. The person who issues licences has already FREELY contracted to carry out the Labour. You are supporting FORCING people into contracts. 

Not really.   There is no contract they are being forced into.   They are simply being required to obey the law, which says that they cannot discriminate on certain grounds if they run a certain type of business.   The fact that it is their labour or their privately owned business does not give them exceptions.