"There were four religious refusal bills that passed into law in Arkansas,
Montana and
South Dakota. Such bills allow individuals and businesses to openly discriminate against LGBT+ individuals under the guise of religious freedom."
This was made unconstitutional in the 1950s when it came to trying to keep black people as third class citizens in certain states. Now they're trying to do it to gay people.
And yet, they don't pass laws saying they can refuse service to ADULTERERS. In fact, all of these states voted for AN ADULTERER to be president.
62%, 56% and 61% of people in those states voted for an adulterer.
I don't have a problem with Christian bakers, photographers, florists, etc. who don't care to be involved with the sexual peccadilloes of their clientele. I doubt if any of these businesses would want to bake a cake, due photography, etc. for adulterous activities, either. I don't expect businesses to do things my way--I simply go to businesses who do. It is because I love freedom so much that I would never insist anyone else give up one of their freedoms to bow to one of mine. If a bakery can only go so far with a cake, I have no problem adding the finishing touches. If a photographer is not comfortable photographing what I want, I'll find another. Let's work with one another. "I provide a service to everyone up to this point..." is fine.
US elections are too complex to say, "If you agree with Leviticus about this point, then you must agree with all points in Leviticus" doesn't make sense. I can take something as simple as a recipe and while agreeing it calls for the right amount of cinnamon, I don't feel mandated to use the recipe's amount of nutmeg if I feel it is too much for my taste. Therefore, if a candidate has just the right amount of homosexuality and no adultery, but if I don't like the amount s/he favors abortion or more regulations, my vote will go elsewhere. (Probably poorly phrased, but I'm certain you take my point.)