What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[emilynghiem]

There are public accommodation laws on the books to assure that businesses open to the public are, indeed, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Religious dogma cannot be used as an aegis to further discrimination against any group here in the United States of America, unlike countries under repressive Sharia law.

And I'm sorry you never learned the definition of "HYPERBOLE". You employ it so freely, one might assume that you knew its meaning.

You have a right to be wrong. Open to the public, doesn't mean I now can't run my business according to my views.

You are wasting your time. I don't care what you think on this matter. I simply don't. Religious freedom is a constitutional right. You don't have a 'right' to use my business or services. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote huh?

I think you are BOTH right.
Both States guarantee rights AND federal govt is supposed to defend Constitutional rights.
Both followers of churches and religions have freedom to practice
AND there should not be govt imposition either way regarding religion.
Both business owners have rights and freedoms to conduct business
AND citizens/consumers have rights protected by laws.

The problem here is what happens when two different beliefs conflict
* beliefs in gay marriage vs. beliefs that exclude gay marriage
* beliefs in prochoice policies vs. beliefs in prolife policies
* beliefs that denying service is discriminatory and unconstitutional
vs. beliefs denying or imposing against one's religious beliefs is unconstitutional

from the perspective of each person with their own beliefs,
you are all equally right.

So the best way I see to accommodate conflicting beliefs to be constitutionally equal
and protected is to RESOLVE the conflicts and arrive at a CONSENSUS on policy
so NEITHER SIDE is imposed upon. All the sides and beliefs are equally right.

So it is wrong to take one side and impose that by govt at the expense of the other.

the govt policy, decision, law or ruling must either be NEUTRAL or ALL INCLUSIVE.
but cannot take one side of such a debate and impose it on the other against those views.

either way, such a one sided decision will be UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it
abridges or denies the equal constitutional protections of the opposing viewpoint or belief.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I suppose some feeble minded folks see compliance with the law through the hyperbolic lens of 'slavery'. Some bigots shaking their clinched fists at equality might resort to blaming those who are discriminated against. Those societal dinosaurs believe that their rights, the 'right' to discriminate are being eroded while those who are discriminated against are requesting 'special' rights.

We've heard their weak, poorly formed rationalizations before. And they have always failed. Forever.

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

True.

It’s nothing more than demagoguery by the social right hostile to gay Americans, seeking to ‘justify’ discriminating against them.

Public accommodations laws are appropriate and Constitutional, they are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, reflecting the fact that all markets are interrelated, no matter how small or local.

And because their primary focus is the regulation of markets, they in no way manifest a ‘violation’ of religious liberty, to argue otherwise is ignorant nonsense.

 

[emilynghiem]

I suppose some feeble minded folks see compliance with the law through the hyperbolic lens of 'slavery'. Some bigots shaking their clinched fists at equality might resort to blaming those who are discriminated against. Those societal dinosaurs believe that their rights, the 'right' to discriminate are being eroded while those who are discriminated against are requesting 'special' rights.

We've heard their weak, poorly formed rationalizations before. And they have always failed. Forever.

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

Dear NK: if the customer complains to a state commission about discrimination, and the state agency issues a fine against the company for "declining to provide services that would require their staff to attend a wedding against their religious beliefs"
how is that not abusing govt authority to compel or punish someone for their beliefs?

As for a solution, I recommend forming a business network of all vendors especially contractors willing to work at such events, and have an agreement that business owners can subcontract out the work to these other volunteers or staff who agree to fill in for the services and accept legal responsibility so it isn't on the company, and it prevents any issue of not refusing service.

This would solve several problems and provide multiple benefits
1. preventing anyone from feeling rejected or discriminated against
2. promote business referrals to vendors who do want the work
3. prevent and discourage lawsuits
4. respecting peoples views without forcing either side to change
5. promote partnership and collaboration to strengthen instead of divide the community

 

[emilynghiem]

True.

It’s nothing more than demagoguery by the social right hostile to gay Americans, seeking to ‘justify’ discriminating against them.

Public accommodations laws are appropriate and Constitutional, they are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, reflecting the fact that all markets are interrelated, no matter how small or local.

And because their primary focus is the regulation of markets, they in no way manifest a ‘violation’ of religious liberty, to argue otherwise is ignorant nonsense.

Dear CCJ It's not either/or
it's both, 'all of the above'

the challenge here is to find ways to balance and protect BOTH
the religious freedom of people with one set of views beliefs or values
and prevention against discrimination for people of other beliefs or values

Not either/or!

Our constitutional laws require BOTH protection of religious freedom and protection from nondiscrimination.
To meet BOTH standards, we need to find solutions that don't compromise EITHER ONE.
To sit there and "discount the beliefs" of the opposing view is just as wrong as
the other side doing that to your beliefs or mine; that is not equal protection of the law but exclusion of someone's beliefs.
it is equally a way of "discriminating" against someone because we don't "agree with their beliefs."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

True.

It’s nothing more than demagoguery by the social right hostile to gay Americans, seeking to ‘justify’ discriminating against them.

I really do not understand why everyone thinks I am hostile to gays. I have never once said anything derogatory about anyone based on their sexual preference. On the other hand, I can cite numerous examples, some of them in this thread, of the oh so tolerant left making derogatory comments about people based on their religion.

Funny thing, my argument that no one has the right to force another person into slavery is actually based on the Constitution. What, exactly, is your argument that they do based on again?

Public accommodations laws are appropriate and Constitutional, they are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, reflecting the fact that all markets are interrelated, no matter how small or local.

They actually reflect no such thing. What they actually reflect is that SCOTS is so screwed up that they are unwilling to overturn patently offensive rulings, so they end up making up ridiculous rationalizations to undo stupid rulings without actually admitting they were wrong.

And because their primary focus is the regulation of markets, they in no way manifest a ‘violation’ of religious liberty, to argue otherwise is ignorant nonsense.

Can you explain something to me, oh font of all things wrong about the law, if they are in no way manifest a violation of religious liberty why is anyone required to attend a wedding they have a religious objection to?

 

[Andylusion]

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

True.

It’s nothing more than demagoguery by the social right hostile to gay Americans, seeking to ‘justify’ discriminating against them.

Public accommodations laws are appropriate and Constitutional, they are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, reflecting the fact that all markets are interrelated, no matter how small or local.

And because their primary focus is the regulation of markets, they in no way manifest a ‘violation’ of religious liberty, to argue otherwise is ignorant nonsense.

I don't have to justify anything. I'm going to live by my religious views, whether you think they are justified or not. I don't what you think, or what the law says on this matter.

Too bad.

Now if you want to know why I believe X Y and Z, I'll tell you. But if don't agree with those reasons, I don't care. Nonya! lol

 

[Andylusion]

You do realize that the rights enumerated in the constitution aren't the only rights enjoyed by Americans, don't you? The constitution is not restrictive in that way. And discrimination is not practicing religion, is it? You cannot hide behind religion as cover for hatred and discrimination. That 'right to practice religion' is against the law.

And that's what these restrictive laws considered in Arizona and Kansas are all about. Legal cover under the aegis of religion to discriminate. Discrimination conforms to neither law nor religion.

And there's a definite difference between a boycott and discrimination. Under a boycott, the public calling for the boycott voices specific grievances against a business, institution or locale. Under discrimination, individuals are refused services normally available to the public for reasons amounting to the creation of second class citizens. Discrimination occurs against groups for the immutable facts of their race or sex, not because those groups offer policies that my harm the business itself.

I suggest that any business that discriminates may not be long in the market. Once people understand that such businesses harbor hatred for their neighbors, they will organize a boycott either explicitly or implicitly and then dry up the business economically. The same way a lousy restaurant will wither on the vine fro lack of customers, discriminatory businesses will fail for lack of true public accommodation.

Yes, and most of those are wrong. And yes, the constitution is restrictive. That's the whole point of a constitution, is to prevent the tyranny of the majority, where someone whips up 51% of the people, to oppress the 49%.

One example of where the constitution restricts, is by not allowing one side to simply 'declare' everything they want a "right". It's not a right. I don't care what the court says. It's not. That's why it says in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, Liberty and Happiness" right? No, it says "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Pursuit. Working on your own to achieve. Not demanding it from others.

"That 'right to practice religion' is against the law."

What part of "I don't care" do you not grasp? Did I not tell you before, that I would be more than happy to go to prison for my beliefs? I don't care! This isn't a hard concept. What you say is or is not, lawful, doesn't matter to me on this issue.

I am a Christian. I will *DIE* a Christian, and following, and practicing my beliefs. You can threaten me. You can jail me. You can imprison me. You can attack me, mock me, insult me, whatever else you wish to do. Feel free.

I am going to practice being a Christian whether you like it, whether it is lawful, whether you think I'm hateful... none of that matters to me.

Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote, eh?

I suggest that any business that discriminates may not be long in the market. Once people understand that such businesses harbor hatred for their neighbors, they will organize a boycott either explicitly or implicitly and then dry up the business economically

You don't even realize the irony of this do you?

You are against someone boycotting the customers, but have no problem with customers boycotting the business?

You realizes both of those are two sides of the same coin. Why do you have no problem with one group of people hating the Christian, but the Christian refusing to service some customers, that's bad?

They are both the same thing. If two groups hate each other, you are ok with one group boycotting the other. But it drives you nuts if the other does it?

AND ABOUT THIS HATE THING....

You people seem to bring up 'hate' like that in itself is an argument. As if you made some grand point.

I was talking with this other doofus about the Federal Budget, and that we didn't have money to fund X program. He responded with "You hate the poor!" as if, 1 + 1 = 11, if only I didn't hate. It's only because I hate, that math didn't work out for these programs.

Here we are talking about constitutional rights, and up comes "you hate" as if hating changes your constitutional rights. You do understand that this isn't a valid argument, right?

It may not even be a true argument. At least in some parts of the world, where they are tossing grenades into Christian Churches, there is a case to be made for hate.

But no one I know is advocating dragging gay people out of their homes, and stringing them up in town. Short of some fruit cake borrower church or something, that's not being advocated by anyone.

The whole "you hate" argument is crazy. If you just flipped it around, you would see how dumb it is.

You ask if I hate someone so much that I won't bake them a cake. Right?

Here's your question. Do you hate Christians so much, that you'll through them in jail for not baking a cake?

My question to you, is just a valid, just as much an argument, as your own. Both are irrelevant. It's not a argument. You don't have right to demand I service you, anymore than I have the right to demand you use my service. Freedom. Welcome to Freedom. Constitutionally protected freedom.

You are saying that companies have the right to practice religion. Doing business as (DBA) is what is on a business license. That means a public entity, a company, is 'doing business', not an individual. Are companies people, or are they an entity created by state fiat?

If the individual hates gays, that individual will refuse service. But if that individual represents a public entity DBA Jones Bakery, the responsibility falls to Jones Bakery. And Jones Bakery is prohibited from discriminating as much as Woolworth's as much as a city bus line, as much as any other business entity.

And it's really hatred that drives that decision to discriminate, isn't it? If there was no hatred there, why bother discriminating, why bother showing open derision, why bother making someone feel as a second class citizen?

The freedom to practice religion is not an unlimited right. Some Native American cultures use peyote in their worship services, but that use is prohibited. Some Haitian religions use live animal sacrifice in their rites, but that practice is prohibited by law.

Whoever owns the company.... owns it. It's not a seperate person in my book.

A public company, could be considered differently, because it's more of a group ownership.

But in a private company, that I own, where I own the building, I own the equipment, I own the product, I own the everything.... That's mine. Not yours. I can run it as I see fit, and there is nothing you are going to do to stop me. I'll just move somewhere else, open under a different name, and sucks to be you.

I was working here in Hilliard Ohio, at a small privately owned company, where 90% of the people were all Muslims from the middle east. They had a room setup with prayer mats, facing east, and had a call to prayer over the intercom, and every Friday, the men would leave, to go to the mosque. All the women, worked in a separate room by themselves, with a single Muslim man watching over the entire group. They had water pans in the men's bath room so they could wash their feet before lunch.

It's their company. It's their property. It's their right to practice their religious freedom, as they see fit.

And no, it's not always hatred. Even if it was, so what? Hatred doesn't change anything about this debate.

But if you want to talk about it, fine. A few years back I decided that I want to help out at a battered women's shelter. I got an application, submitted it to them, and got a reply back..... you are a guy. Sorry. Did they 'hate' me? No. I was a guy, and I didn't fit in at a battered women's shelter.

What if I tried to join the United Negro College Fund? I'm not black. Do they 'hate' me? No. Are they discriminator? Sure.

The difference is, you are assuming automatically that discriminating is bad. If you have a 18 year old daughter, and a drunk guy, dealing drugs, shows up at the house to ask her out.... would you be discriminating. Why? Cause you are not an idiot? Cause you know better than to send your daughter off with a drunk drug dealer?

Doesn't mean you hate him. You have values that cause you to act in a certain way.

Now I am not suggesting that there are not people who hate gays. I'm sure there are. I haven't met them personally, but I know they exist.

Nevertheless... the reason I follow my beliefs is because I know they are right, not because I hate.

But again... hate doesn't matter. Constitutional rights, are just that. I have a right to follow my religious views, and you have no say in the matter.

Do you HATE me enough, to put me in prison over baking a cake?

Claiming religion as a means of discrimination was used by slave holders and the bigoted Jim Crow south. There is no undue burden on one's PRACTICE OF RELGION in providing the exact same services for the exact same fee

What part of "I don't care" do you not get?

Are you seriously comparing 'not baking a cake' with slavery?

Not the same. Not comparable. Again, following my religious beliefs with my business, is not even remotely comparable to "I'm going to make this guy into my personal slave".

And what wacky justifications someone somewhere in the deep south made up to keep slaves, does not matter to me. I don't care.

Never mind the fact that it was almost exclusively Christian belief that pushed to end slavery.

Again, I don't care about all that crap. I have the right to follow my religious beliefs. Period. That rest of that garbage, doesn't matter to me. Sucks to be you. Too bad I can vote, eh?

 

[Nosmo King]

Because not speeding is exactly the same as being forced to attend a wedding by the government.

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

Dear NK: if the customer complains to a state commission about discrimination, and the state agency issues a fine against the company for "declining to provide services that would require their staff to attend a wedding against their religious beliefs"
how is that not abusing govt authority to compel or punish someone for their beliefs?

As for a solution, I recommend forming a business network of all vendors especially contractors willing to work at such events, and have an agreement that business owners can subcontract out the work to these other volunteers or staff who agree to fill in for the services and accept legal responsibility so it isn't on the company, and it prevents any issue of not refusing service.

This would solve several problems and provide multiple benefits
1. preventing anyone from feeling rejected or discriminated against
2. promote business referrals to vendors who do want the work
3. prevent and discourage lawsuits
4. respecting peoples views without forcing either side to change
5. promote partnership and collaboration to strengthen instead of divide the community

emilynghiem, I applaud the compromise, but I don't think it's necessary. If vendors and their staffs feel that attending the church ceremony is objectionable to themselves and the PRACTICE of their religion, their objections do not meet the legal standards of undue and burdensome restrictions on their religious practices. If they object to being at the reception as an affront to their rights to practice their religion, how is that possible? The reception is usually a secular celebration. The church ceremony is a religious sanctification of the marriage.

Would these same so-called Christians so offended at entering a church also be so put off by being present at a secular party? If that's the case, they should make it known to other groups, perhaps certain ethnic wedding receptions that they are offended by being present there as well. Maybe those so-called Christians also object to working for an Indian couple or a Jewish couple or a Black couple or an inter-racial couple.

Or is it just same sew couples? Are they afraid the Gay might rub off on them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a little hint: YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT "FORCING" ANYONE TO GO TO A WEDDING AGAINST THEIR WILL!

There is no sense debating something that is off topic and only in your imagination.

Dear NK: if the customer complains to a state commission about discrimination, and the state agency issues a fine against the company for "declining to provide services that would require their staff to attend a wedding against their religious beliefs"
how is that not abusing govt authority to compel or punish someone for their beliefs?

As for a solution, I recommend forming a business network of all vendors especially contractors willing to work at such events, and have an agreement that business owners can subcontract out the work to these other volunteers or staff who agree to fill in for the services and accept legal responsibility so it isn't on the company, and it prevents any issue of not refusing service.

This would solve several problems and provide multiple benefits
1. preventing anyone from feeling rejected or discriminated against
2. promote business referrals to vendors who do want the work
3. prevent and discourage lawsuits
4. respecting peoples views without forcing either side to change
5. promote partnership and collaboration to strengthen instead of divide the community

emilynghiem, I applaud the compromise, but I don't think it's necessary. If vendors and their staffs feel that attending the church ceremony is objectionable to themselves and the PRACTICE of their religion, their objections do not meet the legal standards of undue and burdensome restrictions on their religious practices. If they object to being at the reception as an affront to their rights to practice their religion, how is that possible? The reception is usually a secular celebration. The church ceremony is a religious sanctification of the marriage.

Would these same so-called Christians so offended at entering a church also be so put off by being present at a secular party? If that's the case, they should make it known to other groups, perhaps certain ethnic wedding receptions that they are offended by being present there as well. Maybe those so-called Christians also object to working for an Indian couple or a Jewish couple or a Black couple or an inter-racial couple.

Or is it just same sew couples? Are they afraid the Gay might rub off on them?

Are you saying the New Mexico Supreme Court was wrong? They actually ruled that, even though it is an actual burden on religion to attend a wedding ceremony, the law still requires them to attend.

The Socially Acceptable Range of Discrimination, Revisited | Popehat

If you disagree with the decision, why are you here arguing in favor of slavery? If you don't, why are you insisting that it public accommodation laws do not burden religion? Is the real problem here that you actually don't know what you are talking about?

 

[daws101]

Slavery by any other name is still stinks.

slavery to a religious belief being the worst..

Yes, it is, which is why your life is so pathetic.

so now you claim to be psychic....

 

[daws101]

Slavery by any other name is still stinks.

That's the sum total of your response? You must have realized what a weak and repressive argument you made.

Once again, Conservatives find themselves on the wrong side of freedom, the wrong side of the American way, the wrong side of history.

Is this better?

Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call slavery
By any other name would smell as rotten;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.​

talk about taken out of context...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True.

It’s nothing more than demagoguery by the social right hostile to gay Americans, seeking to ‘justify’ discriminating against them.

Public accommodations laws are appropriate and Constitutional, they are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, reflecting the fact that all markets are interrelated, no matter how small or local.

And because their primary focus is the regulation of markets, they in no way manifest a ‘violation’ of religious liberty, to argue otherwise is ignorant nonsense.

Dear CCJ It's not either/or
it's both, 'all of the above'

the challenge here is to find ways to balance and protect BOTH
the religious freedom of people with one set of views beliefs or values
and prevention against discrimination for people of other beliefs or values

Not either/or!

Our constitutional laws require BOTH protection of religious freedom and protection from nondiscrimination.
To meet BOTH standards, we need to find solutions that don't compromise EITHER ONE.
To sit there and "discount the beliefs" of the opposing view is just as wrong as
the other side doing that to your beliefs or mine; that is not equal protection of the law but exclusion of someone's beliefs.
it is equally a way of "discriminating" against someone because we don't "agree with their beliefs."

Incorrect.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment, as with all other rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions. This also means that government is allowed to enact measures that address a compelling government interest pursuant to a legitimate legislative end, such as public accommodations laws, whose sole intent is to regulate markets as authorized by the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)). Because the primary focus of these laws is to regulate markets, and not infringe upon religious liberty, they are both appropriate and Constitutional, even if theists might subjectively – and incorrectly – perceive such laws as to encroach upon their religious practices (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

As the Supreme Court determined in Lemon, for an act to be Constitutional, it must pass a three-pronged test to determine if it violates either the Establishment Clause, where church and state must remain separate, or the Free Exercise Clause, where government adversely effects religious liberty:

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [403 U.S. 602, 613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Clearly public accommodations laws pass this test, are consequently Constitutional, and do not interfere with religious expression.

Do public accommodations laws have a secular legislative purpose? Yes, to regulate markets. Is the principal or primary effect of public accommodations laws to inhibit religion? No, as again, they are regulatory measures only. And do public accommodations laws manifest an excessive government entanglement with religion? No, of course not, as public accommodations laws have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Undoubtedly conservative opposition to public accommodations laws has nothing to do with concerns about ‘religious freedom,’ and everything to do with the right’s hostility toward gay Americans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True.

It’s nothing more than demagoguery by the social right hostile to gay Americans, seeking to ‘justify’ discriminating against them.

Public accommodations laws are appropriate and Constitutional, they are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, reflecting the fact that all markets are interrelated, no matter how small or local.

And because their primary focus is the regulation of markets, they in no way manifest a ‘violation’ of religious liberty, to argue otherwise is ignorant nonsense.

Dear CCJ It's not either/or
it's both, 'all of the above'

the challenge here is to find ways to balance and protect BOTH
the religious freedom of people with one set of views beliefs or values
and prevention against discrimination for people of other beliefs or values

Not either/or!

Our constitutional laws require BOTH protection of religious freedom and protection from nondiscrimination.
To meet BOTH standards, we need to find solutions that don't compromise EITHER ONE.
To sit there and "discount the beliefs" of the opposing view is just as wrong as
the other side doing that to your beliefs or mine; that is not equal protection of the law but exclusion of someone's beliefs.
it is equally a way of "discriminating" against someone because we don't "agree with their beliefs."

Incorrect.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment, as with all other rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions. This also means that government is allowed to enact measures that address a compelling government interest pursuant to a legitimate legislative end, such as public accommodations laws, whose sole intent is to regulate markets as authorized by the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)). Because the primary focus of these laws is to regulate markets, and not infringe upon religious liberty, they are both appropriate and Constitutional, even if theists might subjectively – and incorrectly – perceive such laws as to encroach upon their religious practices (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

As the Supreme Court determined in Lemon, for an act to be Constitutional, it must pass a three-pronged test to determine if it violates either the Establishment Clause, where church and state must remain separate, or the Free Exercise Clause, where government adversely effects religious liberty:

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [403 U.S. 602, 613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Clearly public accommodations laws pass this test, are consequently Constitutional, and do not interfere with religious expression.

Do public accommodations laws have a secular legislative purpose? Yes, to regulate markets. Is the principal or primary effect of public accommodations laws to inhibit religion? No, as again, they are regulatory measures only. And do public accommodations laws manifest an excessive government entanglement with religion? No, of course not, as public accommodations laws have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Undoubtedly conservative opposition to public accommodations laws has nothing to do with concerns about ‘religious freedom,’ and everything to do with the right’s hostility toward gay Americans.

Public accommodation laws, as they currently exist, have never survived a challenge based on infringement of 1st Amendment rights.