Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...

A Muslim can't force a jew to advertise for "Pork, the other white meat". A Mormon can't force a Muslim to print a picture of a cartoon of Muhammed.
Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
One that is explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment, along with religion.
And inherent in the right to express what one believes and supports, is equally a right not to be compelled to express that which one does not believe or support.
Yep. They're gonna lose this one. This time, the law is clear and concise. The Constitution would have be fundamentally rewritten in two of the Amendments for the church of LGBT to get a victory on this one...
Except of course, they didn't. The Supreme Court already allowed the lower court rulings to stand and denied Cert. Exactly as they did for Kim Davis.
See, Sil....it doesn't matter what you and Bob tell each other about what the constitution means. It matters what the law and courts recognize the constitution to mean. And your pseudo-legal gibberish ignores the law and the courts and replaces both with your imagination.
Alas, your imagination is functionally irrelevant to actual legal outcomes. Which might explain why your every legal prediction, without exception, is wrong.
As much as I and many others may hate it, you are right for practical purposes, the constitution says what the courts and ultimately the supreme court interpret it to say. I will not be surprised if the next ruling says that the constitution means "pineapple".
This isn't a 'liberal/Conservative' thing. THe justice I'm quoting that explicitly contradicts the 'religion trumps civil law' meme is Justice Scalia. Arguably the most conservative justice on the court until his passing. This is well established in our system of law. And frankly, should be.
As 'free excercise' doesn't mean immunity to any law you disagree with. If it did, we'd be 'courting anarchy', as Scalia put it. As religion is so diverse and the standard of 'religious belief' so utterly subjective that virtually all law would be voluntary. Its essentially a religiously based 'Sovereign Citizen' argument.
Worse, faux 'religious liberty' Christians don't think this through. If religious belief alone allows Christians to be exempted from any law they disagree with......the same is true of any religious person. Sharia law is suddenly elevated as supreme over all US civil law. With any Muslim being the sole arbiter of whether or not any US law applies to them.
Oh, and I love your handle. Its hilarious!