So bigotry is good as long as the Bible is behind it.
Freedom of association is good. Better than P.C. totalitarianism.
It’s got nothing to do with religious freedom. Unless you think restaurants having to serve black couples even though their religion frowns on miscegenation violates it too.
Requiring a business to serve the public equally is P.C. totalitarianism?
I didn’t realize professional photography was a religion.
You’ve never been in a “digital photography” vs. “real photography” discussion with a professional photographer, have you? 
Yes. It steals your soul.
Only when they take your picture for your drivers license.
A wedding photographer, caterer, musician, reception DJ is a hired participant in the celebration. If such a celebration is against one’s faith, then one should be free to refuse the business.
And as wrong as I believe such a belief would be, that goes for people who object to inter-racial marriages also.
This is where we see the lie behind such liberal slogans as “Don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t have one!” when they really mean “And don’t dare be in any business where we can make you participate in one, because we will!”
Being forced to attend & participate in a wedding celebration is a lot different that seating/serving people in a restaurant.
They are not participating, they’re paid to be there and provide a service.
No, it isn’t. By this reasoning an Italian restaurant couldn’t refuse to serve gay people because they come into the restaurant, but pizza place could refuse to deliver to a gay couple. That wouldn’t make any sense. The issue is this: at least under New Mexico law, if you’re a business that advertises services to the general public, it makes no difference if your business involves you going someplace or the public coming to you. If you advertise the public at large, you are a public accommodation and you are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or other grounds.
I have no problem with sticking it to bigots.
In what way is it different?
Well, the law says different. Do you think that sexual orientation deserves less protection run race under the law?
It’s not actually an issue related to gy marriage, but gay rights in general. I don’t think it should be legal to discriminate against gays if you’re operating a public business. The nature of that business is immaterial. Wedding photography should not be treated any differently than any other business.
Of course, because you believe in coerced servitude over freedom of religion & association.
Question- why would gays want to give their marriage business to people who object to their sexuality, who would at best do their job without any enthusiasm, & then possibly contribute money earned to anti-gay causes?
When you open a business to the public, you have to expect the public to walk in expecting to buy.
Until the would-be customer is told s/he’s less than human, how can s/he know their existence is offensive?
Yes, I do believe sexual orientation is a great deal different than race. And so do you. You believe that people of all races should be protected by law from discrimination. Do you believe that about people of all sexual orientations? Or only those on the approved SLGBTQ… continuum?
Can you please give an example of a non-coercive (because I’m expecting the “gotcha” I typically hear here) sexual orientation that is NOT on the “approved” continuum?
And for the record, if a person walks into your store and says “I’m a pedophile, but I’ve never touched a kid because that would be wrong.”, yes, I am just as opposed to you discriminating against him/her as anyone else.
I’ll go further than Miller, by the by:
If you’re operating a business that is open to public custom, I do not believe you should be legally allowed to refuse to serve anyone who has not engaged in some sort of malfeasance related to you or your business. (Somewhat obviously, I’m fine with one having the ability to throw out the nonpaying, disruptive, or otherwise misbehaving customer)
This, also somewhat obviously, allows churches and membership-based organizations to continue to discriminate, and church-run religiously oriented businesses to discriminate up to the limits of the magisterial exemption, which is fine with me. Churches and organizations that continue to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation will, within my lifetime, go the way churches and organizations that discriminated based on race have been going–they will change, or they will sink into fringe lunacy.
A religion is an explanation for bigotry, not an excuse.