“It is you who don’t understand. Barbara and Jill are running a business.”
Correction: Barbara and Jill are running a private business. The word you left out is the most important one.
“In this country, businesses do not have the right to discriminate if they are open to the public.”
Apparently not any more: But they should have. Anyone who sets up any kind of business which is privately owned and not funded by the taxpayer, should have the right to run that business in any way they choose. To deny a private citizen the right to discriminate in accordance with their personal beliefs runs contrary to the UDHR, the laws of natural justice and the United States Constitution.
If a Jewish couple wish to set up an organisation or business which caters only to other Jews; then to deny them that right is to rob them of their basic human right to their freedom of choice.
“Gloria is not asking for hate speech, just a cake with statues and writing on it.”
It makes no difference what Gloria wants or what your subjective definition of “hate speech” is. The issue at hand is the right of Barbara and Jill to make their own choices. Gloria does not have the right to force Barbara and Jill to do anything they don’t want to do. At least she should not have that right.
“Evangelism isn’t even an inborn trait, it’s a “lifestyle choice” that is protected by the First Amendment. If the law says I can’t discriminate against Christians, then they can’t discriminate against me, either.”
What evangelism is or that the first amendment does not appear to be doing its job is irrelevant. The law has no right to tell you that you cannot discriminate against Christians, nor they against you. As a non believer I do not have the right to force a privately funded Catholic or Jewish school to allow me to teach there. The first amendment guarantees that there shall be “no prohibition on the free exercise of religion.” Your constitution guarantees that “the full and equal rights of conscience may not be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
That is unequivocal: Yet you want the law to force somebody to provide you with a service that infringes upon their conscience.
You have the right to freedom of choice. You do not have any right to anyone else’s service. Your constitution is crystal clear on that point and it is designed to protect you rights as much as anyone else’s.
If I had a store and posted signs saying“Evangelical Christians Not Served Here”, I would be violating the law, regardless of the fact that I consider proselytization to be crass salesmanship of what should be a sacred relationship.”
Then your authorities are abusing your constitution and instigating bad law. And bad law always ends badly. Will you also support the right of a man to sue a woman only gym? Will you support the right of an able-bodied person to sue an organisation that only caters to the disabled? Will you sue a private Jewish sports club for refusing entry to a group of Christians or anti-Semites?
Would you support legal action against the gay nightclub that refused service to straight people in Hollywood California?
No: Of course you won’t; because you accept that people have the right to discriminate according to their preferences and their beliefs, as they should do. You just have a double standard that sees discrimination as wrong only when someone whose beliefs don’t tally with yours does it.
A good law must apply to everybody: Law can not and should never be based on any one group’s subjective morals. If it is that subjective, as it now appears to be in your country, then pretty soon it will be widely abused by every-loony tune group with a grudge, just as it was abused in the famous gay wedding cake cases.
A couple are put out of business having been targeted for their religious beliefs; and you applaud! Who in this picture is the bigot?
And what happened to the “Land of the Free?”