The Executive Director of New Jersey Pride GETS IT

[Bfgrn]

Cause they know if a sign said I stand for traditional marriage was posted in a store that store would thrive without them.

View attachment 43811

to support your claim would be appreciated.

Crowds flock to Chick-fil-A to back anti-gay marriage view

I think you are either fooling yourself or being disingenuous if you think that America has changed because 5 old men and women, with at least two of them being homosexuals, changes the attitude of the people of this country.

http://www.all-fab.com/pdf/bcsi103.pdf
Highlights of Elena Kagan’s Record as Dean at Harvard Law School, 2003-2009 (documentation in following section):

• Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger community.
• Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein, an expert on "queer" legal issues. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as taking up “newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck)” as well as "polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors."
• Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law courseby “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein (Obama's regulatory czar, 2009-2012) who has written in support of free-for-all marriage relationships.
• Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a "Justice Kagan" on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists — when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?
• Kagan engaged in ongoing radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.
• Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them — deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.
• Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals. She followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations — within a month of meeting with a Harvard Law School GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus. She moderated a panel on GLBT law at the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus's 25th anniversary celebration in 2008.
• Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign (during her tenure) to make the campus “trans inclusive” — using Harvard’s “gender identity” non-discrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Meaning, allowing men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)
• Thanks in part to engagement by Kagan (and other administrators), Harvard has become so committed to radical transsexual activism that its health insurance policy now [2010] partially covers “sex-change” breast “treatments” for transsexuals (either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are). Where does Kagan stand on transgenderism and transsexuality and the law today? It's very possible this question will come before the courts as trans activists make their demands on government health care.
• Elena Kagan was a member of the Diversity Task Force of the ultra-leftist Boston Bar Association during the time of its activism in support of "gay marriage" and advocacy for "transgender rights." Clearly, she was in agreement with its support for radical GLBT "rights."

________________________________________________

The following is a more in-depth treatment of the pro-homosexuality and pro-transgender activism that took place during Kagan’s tenure as Dean of the Harvard Law School (2003-2009):

Why she is another Martin Luther King Jr...bravo Elena Kagan!!!

 

[Derideo_Te]

A little momentum, here and there, I'll take it.

We can't heal wounds until the liars and narcissists on both ends are culturally marginalized.

Nice to be ahead of the curve, I knew I was.

.

And how long do you think this bandaide is going to last to keep the severed artery of Christians under legal attack by the cult of LGBT from blowing through into a SCOTUS case?

The gays are already suing the Church of England to perform gay weddings, and with 100% certainty they will be doing that here too.

The EC already democratically voted to perform gay weddings here in the USA.

The CofE's problem is that it is the state church.

Perhaps they will do the smart thing and pass a law separating the church from the state entirely.

 

[Skylar]

Wow, good for her. She gets it. I hope that she'd invite me to her wedding.

No doubt she'll be a target of the PC Police for this, maybe lose her job:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

Frankly, I've had it with the narcissistic assumption that gay folks are dying to get into any straight club that doesn't want them. So let me be clear about a few things: I do not want to order a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a guy who thinks I'm going to hell. I have no desire to purchase bouquets from a florist who pickets Pride parades. I wouldn't serve pizza at a wedding if the owner paid me and offered to serenade my guests with an a cappella version of "Born This Way." And finally, the suggestion that I would be insane enough to want to force a homophobic clergyperson to preside over my most sacred day is beyond insulting. I'm a lesbian who was raised Orthodox Jewish and even I am not that self-hating.

So I say to Amyx and others of his ilk, be blunt. If your message is "No Gays Allowed," then put it out there, loud and proud. Let me know you don't want me in your store, and I'll steer clear. And please, hang similar signage if you dream of excluding Jews, African-Americans or any other minority group, because that will likewise inform my decisions as a consumer.

And my point exactly here:

The real problem I have is with all those underground haters. The ones who don't have a sign out front, yet silently seethe about my "lifestyle," who happily take my money and then give it to the National Organization for Marriage or the Family Research Council or some other group that will use it to try to strip me of my civil rights.

More and more lefties are showing some spine. Looks like I've been ahead of the curve.

.

I've had the same argument with friends of mine in the LGBT community. I've told them that this is a strategic mistake. They worry that if they open the door to wedding service denials, that other services will follow. My argument is that this is the perfect time to compromise, using Utah's laws as an example. Protections for the religious in regards to wedding services. And for gays on everything else.

It grants gays the protections they *actually* want, grants the religious the win that they need to save face and strips the religious right of an entire wedge issue. As anyone who tries to push this past wedding services looks like a bigoted asshole.

But they're hung up on principle. Just like the right wingers.

Stupid fuckers.

I'm seriously considering starting the #Calmyourshit movement. Which advocates people taking a breath and calming the fuck down. Recognizing the difference between matters of principle and ACTUAL harmful effects. All smothered in a heaping helping of actual tolerance of views that you don't share.

With a side of recognizing that much of this issue is media driven for the purposes of revenue.

 

[Mac1958]

I've had the same argument with friends of mine in the LGBT community. I've told them that this is a strategic mistake. They worry that if they open the door to wedding service denials, that other services will follow.

On its face, that's a legitimate concern, but they choose to be dishonest and pretend that this is about "the law".

They're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Through their behavior and their actions, they're increasing animosities towards them - not just from people who don't like gays, but people who don't like seeing people being forced to do things against their will, people who don't like seeing others intimidated (which is where I am).

What they're missing is that what they fear won't happen if they just allow society itself to marginalize the bigots, which is already happening. For those who insist on remaining bigots, the author of the piece nails it - let 'em be, let 'em wallow in their own animosities.

Instead, they have to force and intimidate and control and demand capitulation.

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't understand why those who want to intimidate and punish those who disagree with them think they're actually improving anything, or how.

Well, just kidding. I admit, they're clearly not trying to improve anything.

.

Tolerance stops at intolerance. As a society, we have every right to impose our collective values and morality...

Really, you were arguing for freedom from religion the other day and now you say the collective has the right to impose morality. You're confused.

 

[paddymurphy]

Wow, good for her. She gets it. I hope that she'd invite me to her wedding.

No doubt she'll be a target of the PC Police for this, maybe lose her job:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

Frankly, I've had it with the narcissistic assumption that gay folks are dying to get into any straight club that doesn't want them. So let me be clear about a few things: I do not want to order a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a guy who thinks I'm going to hell. I have no desire to purchase bouquets from a florist who pickets Pride parades. I wouldn't serve pizza at a wedding if the owner paid me and offered to serenade my guests with an a cappella version of "Born This Way." And finally, the suggestion that I would be insane enough to want to force a homophobic clergyperson to preside over my most sacred day is beyond insulting. I'm a lesbian who was raised Orthodox Jewish and even I am not that self-hating.

So I say to Amyx and others of his ilk, be blunt. If your message is "No Gays Allowed," then put it out there, loud and proud. Let me know you don't want me in your store, and I'll steer clear. And please, hang similar signage if you dream of excluding Jews, African-Americans or any other minority group, because that will likewise inform my decisions as a consumer.

And my point exactly here:

The real problem I have is with all those underground haters. The ones who don't have a sign out front, yet silently seethe about my "lifestyle," who happily take my money and then give it to the National Organization for Marriage or the Family Research Council or some other group that will use it to try to strip me of my civil rights.

More and more lefties are showing some spine. Looks like I've been ahead of the curve.

.

Gosh!

Not all gays march in lockstep!

I guess that blows away your entire "pc police" meme now.

Do we need to find something else to give your life meaning or will you just take yourself off to the bottom of the garden and enjoy your diet of worms?

On the plus side not having you whining about the "pc police" anymore is definitely something to be grateful for.

Have nice 4th of July.

She's in the tiny minority on the Left, the exception to the rule.

As you know.

Glad I got your attention, that was decent deflection. Not great, not bad.

And the snarky comments I predicted.

Perfect.

.

.

So, her being in the tiny minority is why we have hundreds or thousands of these lawsuits against bakeries, florists, wedding venues around the country? Oh, wait, we have one, maybe two bakeries in the last couple of years. Perhaps one florist and a b and b in NYC. Most people would prefer not to do business with bigots. When there are more than a handful of such suits, you might have a point. Now, you don't.

 

[paddymurphy]

Wow, good for her. She gets it. I hope that she'd invite me to her wedding.

No doubt she'll be a target of the PC Police for this, maybe lose her job:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

Frankly, I've had it with the narcissistic assumption that gay folks are dying to get into any straight club that doesn't want them. So let me be clear about a few things: I do not want to order a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a guy who thinks I'm going to hell. I have no desire to purchase bouquets from a florist who pickets Pride parades. I wouldn't serve pizza at a wedding if the owner paid me and offered to serenade my guests with an a cappella version of "Born This Way." And finally, the suggestion that I would be insane enough to want to force a homophobic clergyperson to preside over my most sacred day is beyond insulting. I'm a lesbian who was raised Orthodox Jewish and even I am not that self-hating.

So I say to Amyx and others of his ilk, be blunt. If your message is "No Gays Allowed," then put it out there, loud and proud. Let me know you don't want me in your store, and I'll steer clear. And please, hang similar signage if you dream of excluding Jews, African-Americans or any other minority group, because that will likewise inform my decisions as a consumer.

And my point exactly here:

The real problem I have is with all those underground haters. The ones who don't have a sign out front, yet silently seethe about my "lifestyle," who happily take my money and then give it to the National Organization for Marriage or the Family Research Council or some other group that will use it to try to strip me of my civil rights.

More and more lefties are showing some spine. Looks like I've been ahead of the curve.

.

Gosh!

Not all gays march in lockstep!

I guess that blows away your entire "pc police" meme now.

Do we need to find something else to give your life meaning or will you just take yourself off to the bottom of the garden and enjoy your diet of worms?

On the plus side not having you whining about the "pc police" anymore is definitely something to be grateful for.

Have nice 4th of July.

She's in the tiny minority on the Left, the exception to the rule.

As you know.

Glad I got your attention, that was decent deflection. Not great, not bad.

And the snarky comments I predicted.

Perfect.

.

.

I knew you were expecting them so I didn't want to disappoint you. We know how you get when things don't go your way!

As far as what she said goes you might want to read it again.

She was essentially telling the homophobes to come out of their closet and deal with the consequences when informed consumers make their choices.

I am not gay but if I saw such a sign I would not patronize that establishment.

In essence she was calling them out for being cowards.

Did you post about a 135K fine for someone who was brave enough to come out? Don't you relish the stories of lives and businesses ruined? Why yes, yes it is you who seems to get off on such stories.

Live and Business. One.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, good for her. She gets it. I hope that she'd invite me to her wedding.

No doubt she'll be a target of the PC Police for this, maybe lose her job:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

Frankly, I've had it with the narcissistic assumption that gay folks are dying to get into any straight club that doesn't want them. So let me be clear about a few things: I do not want to order a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a guy who thinks I'm going to hell. I have no desire to purchase bouquets from a florist who pickets Pride parades. I wouldn't serve pizza at a wedding if the owner paid me and offered to serenade my guests with an a cappella version of "Born This Way." And finally, the suggestion that I would be insane enough to want to force a homophobic clergyperson to preside over my most sacred day is beyond insulting. I'm a lesbian who was raised Orthodox Jewish and even I am not that self-hating.

So I say to Amyx and others of his ilk, be blunt. If your message is "No Gays Allowed," then put it out there, loud and proud. Let me know you don't want me in your store, and I'll steer clear. And please, hang similar signage if you dream of excluding Jews, African-Americans or any other minority group, because that will likewise inform my decisions as a consumer.

And my point exactly here:

The real problem I have is with all those underground haters. The ones who don't have a sign out front, yet silently seethe about my "lifestyle," who happily take my money and then give it to the National Organization for Marriage or the Family Research Council or some other group that will use it to try to strip me of my civil rights.

More and more lefties are showing some spine. Looks like I've been ahead of the curve.

.

The problem is the "obey or else" contingent of your political affiliation are louder and more willing to push their views.

 

[paddymurphy]

A pro gay activist, Elana Kagan to give IMPARTIAL JUDGEMENT ON SSM.......

LOL

CBS during her confirmation stated Elana Kagan would be the 1st Openly Gay Justice of the Supreme Court..........Then later recanted.................

kagan - Pray In Jesus Name - Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt PhD

This site accuses her of being gay citing examples of why..............Is she a Lesbian...............perhaps the jury is still out, but there can be No question that her activities at Harvard were to the point of being a GAY RIGHTS ACTIVIST.....................

And to Judge on a case with known Prejudices to one side is a mockery of Justice................She should have reclused herself of this case.....................

Brought up because I saw the gay issue in Free Wills Post.

So, then, all of the straight judges should have recused as well? She had no prejudices; she had a belief in the constitution and its application to all Americans.

 

[Mac1958]

When there are more than a handful of such suits, you might have a point. Now, you don't.

I could make precisely the same point to you.

.

 

[martybegan]

I thought PaintMyHouse put it pretty well in Post 19:

When you got 'em by the balls their hearts and minds will follow...

Intimidation, capitulation, control. Nice to see some honesty on this.

.

Plus he uses examples of the response to Jim Crow in the 50's to 70's, but does not realize that systemic, government lead economic discrimination is not the same as a few bakers/photographers/wedding halls not wanting to work on Same Sex Marriages.

 

[paddymurphy]

When there are more than a handful of such suits, you might have a point. Now, you don't.

I could make precisely the same point to you.

.

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

 

[Mac1958]

When there are more than a handful of such suits, you might have a point. Now, you don't.

I could make precisely the same point to you.

.

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

 

[paddymurphy]

When there are more than a handful of such suits, you might have a point. Now, you don't.

I could make precisely the same point to you.

.

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

 

[martybegan]

When there are more than a handful of such suits, you might have a point. Now, you don't.

I could make precisely the same point to you.

.

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've had the same argument with friends of mine in the LGBT community. I've told them that this is a strategic mistake. They worry that if they open the door to wedding service denials, that other services will follow.

On its face, that's a legitimate concern, but they choose to be dishonest and pretend that this is about "the law".

They're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Through their behavior and their actions, they're increasing animosities towards them - not just from people who don't like gays, but people who don't like seeing people being forced to do things against their will, people who don't like seeing others intimidated (which is where I am).

What they're missing is that what they fear won't happen if they just allow society itself to marginalize the bigots, which is already happening. For those who insist on remaining bigots, the author of the piece nails it - let 'em be, let 'em wallow in their own animosities.

Instead, they have to force and intimidate and control and demand capitulation.

.

The scene: On a bus....late December...1955.....

Mac1958 ( whispering into the ear of Miss Rosa Parks ) : "Sweetheart, if you make a fuss, you'll only upset the white people on this bus who don't think you are a jungle animal. They aren't doing you any harm at all. Why make them feel uncomfortable? You'll just rile up the other negroes too. You wouldn't want that, would you? The owner of this here bus company don't want your kind sittin' up front, ya know. It's a reasonable request, after all. I promise....if you just calm down and stop this nonsense, you'll probably live to see the day when you can sit in any seat. You just have to let the white people come to this change of heart in their own time, honey child."

Fuck that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't understand why those who want to intimidate and punish those who disagree with them think they're actually improving anything, or how.

Well, just kidding. I admit, they're clearly not trying to improve anything.

.

Tolerance stops at intolerance. As a society, we have every right to impose our collective values and morality...

Really, you were arguing for freedom from religion the other day and now you say the collective has the right to impose morality. You're confused.

Nope. Freedom of Religion is also limited. When are you going to grow up, never?

 

[eagle1462010]

A pro gay activist, Elana Kagan to give IMPARTIAL JUDGEMENT ON SSM.......

LOL

CBS during her confirmation stated Elana Kagan would be the 1st Openly Gay Justice of the Supreme Court..........Then later recanted.................

kagan - Pray In Jesus Name - Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt PhD

This site accuses her of being gay citing examples of why..............Is she a Lesbian...............perhaps the jury is still out, but there can be No question that her activities at Harvard were to the point of being a GAY RIGHTS ACTIVIST.....................

And to Judge on a case with known Prejudices to one side is a mockery of Justice................She should have reclused herself of this case.....................

Brought up because I saw the gay issue in Free Wills Post.

So, then, all of the straight judges should have recused as well? She had no prejudices; she had a belief in the constitution and its application to all Americans.

Straight Activist................LOL
They were activist for this issue.........nuff said

 

[paddymurphy]

When there are more than a handful of such suits, you might have a point. Now, you don't.

I could make precisely the same point to you.

.

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

 

[martybegan]

I could make precisely the same point to you.

.

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".