So much for separation of church and state

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This article does a pretty good job explaining why baking a cake does not equal free speech:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...ery-broke-law/

A baker is not being "forced" to bake a cake. If the thought that any of their delicious goods might end up in the mouths of people attending a same-sex wedding is just too much for their religious feelings, then they have every right to give up selling cakes for money and give them away instead, to only male-female pairs of customers or whomever they feel deserves them. But once they decide to enter the marketplace with their product and (they hope) make a profit off of it, they must abide by federal and state laws against discrimination in the marketplace..

I don't think this is a freedom of speech case. It's a religious freedom case. The court ruled baking a cake is not religious conduct and certainly that is correct. However putting on a uniform and carrying a gun certainly isn't religious conduct and yet this country has long recognized conscientious objectors on religious grounds.

Again imagine if your argument of feelings were turned the other way around and I said, "if being denied a rainbow filled wedding cake is too much for their gay feelings to handle they have every right not to marry and go on living together instead."

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As to the birth control thing, Flying Spaghetti Monster only knows what the five conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court will decide, but health care is NOT a "gift" from the employer; it's part of the employee's compensation. The employee, in my opinion, anyway, should get to decide how her compensation is spent. Because, by refusing to pay for health plans that include birth control, companies are just forcing women to pay more for it, out of their wages, which is also being paid to them by the company. The company is "paying" for it every bit as much as if it's included in a health plan. Except that by doing it this way, they are, in effect, cutting the wages of female employees, which seems discriminatory to me, but then I am not a lawyer.

The employer not the employee decides compensation including healthcare.

The employee and not the employer decide where and for who said employee works.

However, if male employees are offered covered vasectomies and condoms under their plan, it would be discriminatory for females to be denied the same coverage.