Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[Silhouette]

Pratchett, arguing a false premise is like pissing in the wind. Behaviors aren't equal to race. There is ZERO protection for behaviors in the US Constitution. Remember that..

But there is the First Amendment which protects a person's right to exercise (daily, every day, everywhere) of their faith. You cannot force them to commit grave blasphemy as a matter of secular law. Hobby Lobby will be the guide for this.

The ultimate sin of blasphemy would be submitting the Bible to redaction by the hand of man. The ultimate sin with regard to this topic would be to force Christians (or Christians submitting actively or passively to that force) to rewrite the terms of Jude 1 and instead incorporate a sin into "a held value". THAT is the abstract core of Jude 1 that gets you eternity in the slammer. The ultimate blasphemy: redacting the Holy Words without Permission (and that's a capital "P").

All Christians are sinners. They come to that faith with that as the requirement. That requirement never leaves them; or very rarely. You may have heard of saints? They are the uber-rare exception to the immense-rule.

The rest of them are sinners...ALL of them! Their sin however does not submit the Christian New Testament to democratic revision. There is no power of redaction via numbers. In the New Testament there are prescriptions of all types for this type of sinful behavior and that type of sinful behavior. Homosexuals are no different. Christians are urged to reach out to them with compassion "making a difference".

Venial sins vs mortal sins are what's being discussed particularly with respect to so-called "gay marriage". Being a homosexual is a venial sin; its mendable, forgivable, deserving of tolerance and compassion. HOWEVER, enabling a homosexual to call what he does "normal" or to spread that idea to others, particularly an entire culture or settlement of people is UNFORGIVABLE. The prescription for that is the eternal death in the pit of fire.

You cannot ask a Christian to do that. You cannot mandate a Christian to do that. There is no mitigation for that transgression. And that is because a homosexual cultural value replaces normal values and from there the bastardization of the New Testament Teachings becomes indelible. It would be like saying "lying is the new vogue, incorporate lying into the fabric, the hub (marriage=equivalent) of human society" instead of "lying is a sin, extend compassion to the liars and bring them to the fold".

 

[Redfish]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

 

[dblack]

But there is the First Amendment which protects a person's right to exercise (daily, every day, everywhere) of their faith. You cannot force them to commit grave blasphemy as a matter of secular law.

That's NOT what the First Amendment does.

 

[Ravi]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

Wrong. A customer wanting beer or wine in a store that does not stock beer and wine is not suffering discrimination. A kosher butcher does not stock bacon, but anyone wanting bacon in his shop came to the wrong butcher.

But anyone in that kosher butcher shop can buy any of his goods and he cannot refuse their patronage, so long as they buy what he has to sell.

 

[Redfish]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

 

[Ravi]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

She is perfectly able to limit what she sells for religious reasons. She could only sell praise Jesus floral arrangements.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

 

[Redfish]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

Wrong. A customer wanting beer or wine in a store that does not stock beer and wine is not suffering discrimination. A kosher butcher does not stock bacon, but anyone wanting bacon in his shop came to the wrong butcher.

But anyone in that kosher butcher shop can buy any of his goods and he cannot refuse their patronage, so long as they buy what he has to sell.

You are making my point. A florist who only wants to sell to heterosexuals should be able to do that. Would it be ok if she had a sign in the window that said "Christians only". Before you answer remember you just said it was Ok for the butcher to say "kosher only".

 

[bodecea]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

It is YOU missing the point. It is NOT discrimination if a story does not offer a service at all..for anyone...ever. It's not discrimination if you go a car parts store and expect to be served dessert.

 

[Redfish]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

 

[Ravi]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

Wrong. A customer wanting beer or wine in a store that does not stock beer and wine is not suffering discrimination. A kosher butcher does not stock bacon, but anyone wanting bacon in his shop came to the wrong butcher.

But anyone in that kosher butcher shop can buy any of his goods and he cannot refuse their patronage, so long as they buy what he has to sell.

You are making my point. A florist who only wants to sell to heterosexuals should be able to do that. Would it be ok if she had a sign in the window that said "Christians only". Before you answer remember you just said it was Ok for the butcher to say "kosher only".

Kosher products are available for everyone to buy. They even sell them at Publix.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

No.

Public Accommodation laws don't require any business to carry product that they don't carry, or sell anything that they don't normally sell. So a baker is not going to be required to sell kosher wine.

But if the Muslim grocer sells milk, he can't refuse to sell milk to a customer because he thinks the customer is Jewish.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

Wrong. A customer wanting beer or wine in a store that does not stock beer and wine is not suffering discrimination. A kosher butcher does not stock bacon, but anyone wanting bacon in his shop came to the wrong butcher.

But anyone in that kosher butcher shop can buy any of his goods and he cannot refuse their patronage, so long as they buy what he has to sell.

You are making my point. A florist who only wants to sell to heterosexuals should be able to do that. Would it be ok if she had a sign in the window that said "Christians only". Before you answer remember you just said it was Ok for the butcher to say "kosher only".

The difference is between "Christian" and "kosher". One is a religion, the other a dietary protocol. "Christian Only" is discriminatory toward people who are not Christian. "Kosher" means that the goods in that shop conform to a set of protocols, but anyone can shop there.

 

[Ravi]

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

No! The baker can choose not to supply such cake toppers.

 

[Redfish]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

It is YOU missing the point. It is NOT discrimination if a story does not offer a service at all..for anyone...ever. It's not discrimination if you go a car parts store and expect to be served dessert.

So its OK for a store to limit what it sells based on religion? and thats not religious discrimination, but limiting who you cater a wedding for is discrimination?

you logic is falling apart here.

 

[PratchettFan]

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Why would you be hiring a pedophile to watch your kids? Or for that matter a murderer or a convicted conman?

You are right that we do discriminate against people all of the time. In 1964 Congress passed a law making it illegal for certain kinds of business's to discriminate in providing service because of a customers race, creed, gender or national origin.

Was that law wrong?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

The gay couple did not want some kind of service the florist was not providing to anyone else. They wanted the same service the florist was providing to everyone else. They didn't demand the florist bake them a cake, just sell them flowers. I am assuming one of the things the florist did was sell flowers. Your analogy is absurd.

 

[Skylar]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to interracial couples?

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Muslims?

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Mexicans?



Or now you will say there are to be tests so that the government must approve or disapprove that beliefs are closely held or qualify as a valid religious objection. In other words the government gets to decide what religious tenants are valid or invalid. You really want to go down that road with the government making those decisions?


>>>>

Exactly. If religious belief is ample justification for any form of discrimination.......then we've essentially dismantled all discrimination laws.

I find it highly unlikely that the USSC is along for that ride.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

No! The baker can choose not to supply such cake toppers.

then the gay couple could not insist that he get one for their cake? His refusal to buy and sell a cake topper with two women would not be discrimination in your mind?

 

[Nosmo King]

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

No. But he can always special order one. Just as other couples may have special orders. The groom has red hair, the bride a brunette. Should the baker be required to have an appropriate cake topper on hand? No. The bride is African American, the groom Oriental. Special order.