Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[Subduction Zone]

If someone asks you to do something that you would consider that goes against your values. Wouldn't you consider yourself free to reject that project?

No, not always. When one is in a business to serve the public one cannot pick and choose which member of the public one can sell to. Change "gay" to "black" and the illegal nature of those decisions should be obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. If a straight couple asked for services for their wedding and received that service, but a gay couple asked for the exact same services for their wedding and are denied said service, it absolutely is the sexuality that is the issue - even if said services would be offered for other events. It's still the sexual preference of the individuals involved which is the deciding factor.

If I'm happy to sell meat to all people, regardless of colour, but refuse specifically to provide meat to a multi-racial wedding, the only difference between providing the meat to any other kind of wedding is the race of the people involved. Ergo, I am discriminating based on race, even if I would treat the same people differently if it wasn't a wedding. The race is still the determining factor.

Aarrghh! Beat me to it. And at first glance the word the word "meat" stood out before I read the post. Without reading my brain thought the word had to be "meet". No joy their either. I better drink my coffee

 

[dianaiad]

It should have brought up miles-upon-miles of farm, with several names for towns here and there but are so small that there is no town to see on the map (they would be labelled villages and hamlets in settlement hierarchy), except for the bigger ones which aren't that big, with the bigger one having about 50,000 people, with the next biggest having 11,000. Here, it's an hour drive north or south to get to an actual city.

Sounds like paradise to me.

But then....I DID make my own wedding cake and never even thought about going to a baker. In fact, I don't think anybody in my family has EVER gone to a baker for that.

 

[dianaiad]

If the baker/photographer performs services for weddings for some people, but not others, that's discrimination.

Of course it is. The question here is whether his discrimination is protected by the first amendment. I say it is.

Is it discrimination when a restaurant puts the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in the window?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by an Orthodox Jew refuses to 'do' a Catholic, Mormon or Lutheran wedding?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by a gay or transgendered person refuses to 'do' "straight" weddings?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a boutique refuses to sell anything to someone over size 18?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to make a cake for the wedding of a polygamists third trip down the aisle, when the first two spouses are waiting for the new one at the altar?

Yep.

Does anybody have any problems with any of the above?

Nope.

If a business offers its services to a gay person for all occasions but a same sex wedding, that's not being discriminatory because the customer is gay. If THAT were the reason, there would be no birthday cakes, donuts or other pastries being sold to that person.

The problem is that the owner's religious views prevent him/her from participating, or seeming to support or approve of, such a marriage in any way.

I have to honor that just as I have to honor the religious freedom of the school that withdrew an offer of employment from me when they found out that I was a Mormon.

I may not like it. I may not approve of it myself, and I would go ahead and bake that cake for free, but I have a real problem with making the government enforce MY beliefs upon others.

And that is what is happening here.

 

[dianaiad]

Out of curiosity: does anyone know if this guy has ever knowingly made a cake - any cake - for an LGBTQ person? I've seen his claims that he would, but I trust him about as far as I could comfortably throw him... and I note that - AFAICT - his court filings don't actually give any examples of him doing so.

I have no clue, and I think that he's doing this NOW for publicity and is doing his cause more harm than good.

 

[dianaiad]

False. If a straight couple asked for services for their wedding and received that service, but a gay couple asked for the exact same services for their wedding and are denied said service, it absolutely is the sexuality that is the issue - even if said services would be offered for other events. It's still the sexual preference of the individuals involved which is the deciding factor.

If I'm happy to sell meat to all people, regardless of colour, but refuse specifically to provide meat to a multi-racial wedding, the only difference between providing the meat to any other kind of wedding is the race of the people involved. Ergo, I am discriminating based on race, even if I would treat the same people differently if it wasn't a wedding. The race is still the determining factor.

No.

The EVENT is.

I was, several years ago, offered a position as an English teacher at a local private school. Everything was set, up to and including my classroom, the schedule, my duties....

But the offer was rescinded because they found out I am a Mormon. THAT, my friends, is discrimination based upon religion and only religion, FOR THAT POSITION. It was an evangelical Christian school. They only wanted teachers who shared their beliefs to teach there.

Well, they didn't actually 'find out.' They knew that about me already; many of the teachers and administrators were my friends. However, they just couldn't get past my religious affiliation. They remained friends, and I don't blame them at all. It was THEIR religion that caused the problem, not mine.

Just as it is the religion of the baker/whatever that causes the problem with the same sex weddings, not the couple involved.

And THAT is protected by the first amendment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course it is. The question here is whether his discrimination is protected by the first amendment. I say it is.

Would you say the same to a baker who refused to provide a cake to a black couple? Is that freedom of speech?

Is it discrimination when a restaurant puts the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in the window?

Yep.

But it's not illegal because "people without shirts and shoes" are not a protected group, and providing different service to people on those grounds is justifiable.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by an Orthodox Jew refuses to 'do' a Catholic, Mormon or Lutheran wedding?

Yep.

That depends entirely on what services that catering service offers.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by a gay or transgendered person refuses to 'do' "straight" weddings?

Yep.

Do you have any examples of this happening?

Is it discrimination when a boutique refuses to sell anything to someone over size 18?

Yep.

This is also a question of stocks and supplies. A lot of boutiques don't stock for people over a particular size. They aren't refusing to provide a service they otherwise have if they don't actually carry what the customer is asking for.

Is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to make a cake for the wedding of a polygamists third trip down the aisle, when the first two spouses are waiting for the new one at the altar?

Yep.

Depends on the legality of polygamy in that particular legislature.

Does anybody have any problems with any of the above?

Nope.

Actually, I have a problem with a couple of them, but that's largely without any justifying context.

In any case, this is a fallacy. You're arguing that because discrimination is justified in some cases, it's necessarily justified in this case, but each case of discrimination needs examination on its own terms and justifying on its own terms. The argument here is that this particular form of discrimination isn't justified.

If a business offers its services to a gay person for all occasions but a same sex wedding, that's not being discriminatory because the customer is gay.

Yes, it is. The only difference between a straight wedding and a gay wedding is the fact that the couple getting married in the gay wedding are gay.

If THAT were the reason, there would be no birthday cakes, donuts or other pastries being sold to that person.

False. Discrimination doesn't have to be unilateral in order to be discriminatory. If I have a Jewish friend who I treat very well in all other respects, but I refuse to let him borrow money because "he's Jewish and will steal it", it's still discrimination.

The problem is that the owner's religious views prevent him/her from participating, or seeming to support or approve of, such a marriage in any way.

Then they prevent him from operating a bakery that adheres to anti-discrimination laws.

I have to honor that just as I have to honor the religious freedom of the school that withdrew an offer of employment from me when they found out that I was a Mormon.

No, you don't.

I may not like it. I may not approve of it myself, and I would go ahead and bake that cake for free, but I have a real problem with making the government enforce MY beliefs upon others.

And that is what is happening here.

Except you know just as well that you wouldn't be protecting them if this was denial of service on the basis of race.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

The EVENT is.

I was, several years ago, offered a position as an English teacher at a local private school. Everything was set, up to and including my classroom, the schedule, my duties....

But the offer was rescinded because they found out I am a Mormon. THAT, my friends, is discrimination based upon religion and only religion, FOR THAT POSITION. It was an evangelical Christian school. They only wanted teachers who shared their beliefs to teach there.

Well, they didn't actually 'find out.' They knew that about me already; many of the teachers and administrators were my friends. However, they just couldn't get past my religious affiliation. They remained friends, and I don't blame them at all. It was THEIR religion that caused the problem, not mine.

Just as it is the religion of the baker/whatever that causes the problem with the same sex weddings, not the couple involved.

And THAT is protected by the first amendment.

You applied to work at a private school, not a public one. There is a bit of a difference. This bakery was a public bakery. When one sells to the public one loses that ability to discriminate against the public. Once again, substitute "black" for gay and how what the baker did was wrong should become obvious.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No.

The EVENT is.

Already explained twice, I'm not explaining again. You would not be making this argument in defence of denying service to a black or multi-racial wedding.

I was, several years ago, offered a position as an English teacher at a local private school. Everything was set, up to and including my classroom, the schedule, my duties....

But the offer was rescinded because they found out I am a Mormon. THAT, my friends, is discrimination based upon religion and only religion, FOR THAT POSITION. It was an evangelical Christian school. They only wanted teachers who shared their beliefs to teach there.

Well, they didn't actually 'find out.' They knew that about me already; many of the teachers and administrators were my friends. However, they just couldn't get past my religious affiliation. They remained friends, and I don't blame them at all. It was THEIR religion that caused the problem, not mine.

Just as it is the religion of the baker/whatever that causes the problem with the same sex weddings, not the couple involved.

And THAT is protected by the first amendment.

That depends entirely on how the school advertised the position and its requirements for teachers. I have no idea of the details.

In any case, it's irrelevant. Discrimination being justified in one case does not mean it is in this case.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Of course it is. The question here is whether his discrimination is protected by the first amendment. I say it is.

Is it discrimination when a restaurant puts the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in the window?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by an Orthodox Jew refuses to 'do' a Catholic, Mormon or Lutheran wedding?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by a gay or transgendered person refuses to 'do' "straight" weddings?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a boutique refuses to sell anything to someone over size 18?

Yep.

Is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to make a cake for the wedding of a polygamists third trip down the aisle, when the first two spouses are waiting for the new one at the altar?

Yep.

Does anybody have any problems with any of the above?

Nope.

If a business offers its services to a gay person for all occasions but a same sex wedding, that's not being discriminatory because the customer is gay. If THAT were the reason, there would be no birthday cakes, donuts or other pastries being sold to that person.

The problem is that the owner's religious views prevent him/her from participating, or seeming to support or approve of, such a marriage in any way.

I have to honor that just as I have to honor the religious freedom of the school that withdrew an offer of employment from me when they found out that I was a Mormon.

I may not like it. I may not approve of it myself, and I would go ahead and bake that cake for free, but I have a real problem with making the government enforce MY beliefs upon others.

And that is what is happening here.

You can believe what you like. You're just not allowed to discriminate against members of a protected class. We've tried having free for all "serve who you like" situations before. Turns out they turn out badly, and as a society, we've decided we'd rather limit who you can discriminate against rather than allow for the bad stuff.

It's a bit of an either/or situation. Collectively, we've decided the current system is better than the alternative. Yes, it means people are restricted in certain ways, but we've decided that is preferable and less onerous than the ways people's freedoms are restricted if we don't have these protections.

Ultimately, it boils down to this. Someone is going to lose out. Would you prefer it were the bigots or the people just being themselves?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And the baker should have known better. He had to know that he won the first time around because the state applied the law unevenly. The application was uneven, not the law, that is why he got off. He should have known that he put a huge target on his back. When he went and violated the law a second time he is no longer a "victim" but rather a useful tool and fool.

Exactly. Naturally, I think this new issue is a trolling piece of bait. He never had to TAKE the bait, though.

If someone asks you to do something that you would consider that goes against your values. Wouldn't you consider yourself free to reject that project?

Don't put yourself in that situation? If you make wedding cakes for the public, you get to make wedding cakes for the public. If you make birthday cakes for the public, you get to make birthday cakes for the public. Nothing in his "sincerely held religious beliefs" told him to not bake the cake. His God told him to kill non-gender conforming people and his Messiah told him to be nice to them. He refuses to do neither and lost, IMHO, the "sincerely held religious beliefs" thing.

Is it discrimination when a restaurant puts the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in the window?

Health code violations.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by an Orthodox Jew refuses to 'do' a Catholic, Mormon or Lutheran wedding?

Don't get me started on that. I disagree with an entire religion that just wants to sit around and read an old book all day 24/7 and not participate in society. They actually teach people to learn to read just enough to get food stamps. At least, they do here. Even Israel is getting annoyed with this constant stupidity.

Is it discrimination when a catering service owned by a gay or transgendered person refuses to 'do' "straight" weddings?

Any examples?

Is it discrimination when a boutique refuses to sell anything to someone over size 18?

Of course. They should be punished.

Is it discrimination when a bakery refuses to make a cake for the wedding of a polygamists third trip down the aisle, when the first two spouses are waiting for the new one at the altar?

While I'm not particularly one to equate illegal = bad, you can't participate in illegal things. Gay weddings and trans birthdays are legal.

Also, polygamy is biblical.

If a business offers its services to a gay person for all occasions but a same sex wedding, that's not being discriminatory because the customer is gay. If THAT were the reason, there would be no birthday cakes, donuts or other pastries being sold to that person.

As another poster said, where is the evidence he ever DOES serve gays?

The problem is that the owner's religious views prevent him/her from participating, or seeming to support or approve of, such a marriage in any way.

The bible says bratty kids can be killed. People snuff out the lives of their children for drawing on things or crying. Should we not prosecute them because the bible says it's okay?

I have to honor that just as I have to honor the religious freedom of the school that withdrew an offer of employment from me when they found out that I was a Mormon.

Was it a religious school? If not, sue away.

But the offer was rescinded because they found out I am a Mormon. THAT, my friends, is discrimination based upon religion and only religion, FOR THAT POSITION. It was an evangelical Christian school. They only wanted teachers who shared their beliefs to teach there.

The bakery is not church-affiliated in any sense. I disagree with the Hobby Lobby stuff too. They want to claim they are a church when they want to get out of following laws.

This is also a question of stocks and supplies. A lot of boutiques don't stock for people over a particular size. They aren't refusing to provide a service they otherwise have if they don't actually carry what the customer is asking for.

That's true. I forgot about that issue.

 

[dianaiad]

Would you say the same to a baker who refused to provide a cake to a black couple? Is that freedom of speech?

Yes. It is. The first amendment was not written to protect the speech of those with whom we all agree and approve of. It is meant to protect the rights of those with whom we do NOT agree.

But it's not illegal because "people without shirts and shoes" are not a protected group, and providing different service to people on those grounds is justifiable.

How? Because you don't think they should be protected? What is justifiable about refusing service to people without shirts or shoes? Consider: many cultures demand that one REMOVE one's shoes before entering a home, because shoes are just plain dirty. Some require that one don a robe or change clothing while at home, for the same reason.

That depends entirely on what services that catering service offers.

...and if that caterer only offers services to a specific religious group or a specific type of wedding? You know, like a caterer who only 'does' gay and transgendered weddings?

Do you have any examples of this happening?

I live in California. I can give you the websites of a bunch of 'em.

Here's one...LGBT Wedding Photographers
They do a great job, but note that the famous lawsuit against the photographer in Texas was partly about the advertisements. Cindy and Sharon, here, haven't got even one 'straight' wedding in their portfolio. Not one...not even the ones that look like they MIGHT be.

And nobody has sued Cindy and Sharon. They do a good job for the clientele they prefer to serve. Kudos to them, and if anybody attempted to sue them for discrimination, the plaintiff would be laughed out of court.

I could give you others. Lots of 'em.

................and I have no problems at all with them.

This is also a question of stocks and supplies. A lot of boutiques don't stock for people over a particular size. They aren't refusing to provide a service they otherwise have if they don't actually carry what the customer is asking for.

.....and caterers/bakers/photographers who don't happen to carry bride/bride or groom/groom cake toppers? Baloney. Boutiques who don't sell clothes over size six DO sell purses, scarves, whatever....and those things do not depend upon the size of the customer, do they?

but I have personally been told that a store doesn't have 'anything I would want." and been shown the door because I was too fat, or too old. It's annoying.

I would also like to say that the stores that had that policy have gone out of business. That sort of thing happens when one limits one's customer base.

Depends on the legality of polygamy in that particular legislature.

Really? Remember the lawsuit against that photographer in Texas? The one who has been dragged over the coals for YEARS for refusing to 'shoot' a 'gay wedding?"

................At the time, Texas did not recognize gay weddings. The photographer got sued anyway.

Actually, I have a problem with a couple of them, but that's largely without any justifying context.

In any case, this is a fallacy. You're arguing that because discrimination is justified in some cases, it's necessarily justified in this case, but each case of discrimination needs examination on its own terms and justifying on its own terms. The argument here is that this particular form of discrimination isn't justified.

Why? Because you don't like the religious beliefs of the folks doing the discriminating?

Yes, it is. The only difference between a straight wedding and a gay wedding is the fact that the couple getting married in the gay wedding are gay.

They are entering into a MARRIAGE, which for some people means male/female for the purpose of procreation. It is, for them, God given and a commandment. Same sex couples simply cannot procreate 'naturally.' There is no possibility of that. To those who believe this, such a marriage is rankest blasphemy, and it is a grave sin to support it.

False. Discrimination doesn't have to be unilateral in order to be discriminatory. If I have a Jewish friend who I treat very well in all other respects, but I refuse to let him borrow money because "he's Jewish and will steal it", it's still discrimination.

Not the same thing. You are still conflating the event with the people participating in it. Don't do that.

Then they prevent him from operating a bakery that adheres to anti-discrimination laws.

No, you don't.

Yes I do. It's my honor, and you don't get to tell me what that is.

Except you know just as well that you wouldn't be protecting them if this was denial of service on the basis of race.

If the situation was the same; that is, the caterer refused to 'do' the wedding of a black or mixed race couple even though s/he does everything ELSE for that black or mixed race couple, I would be arguing for his freedom of religion and freedom to refuse.

I wouldn't use that caterer any more. I would make it very clear to all my friends that they shouldn't. I might take out advertisements and write articles. I would do my level best to see to it that his/her customer base shrank to zero, but I would absolutely be on his/her side in a lawsuit.

 

[viole]

I thought you cared since you brought it up. The Bible doesn't condone racist or personal discrimination. It is concerned with moral or immoral behavior, right and wrong, truth or falsehood.

Well, you are right. The Bible does not suggest to discriminate gays, it prescribes to stone them to death. So, we are better now, but not because of the Bible, but despite It.

However, I would be unhappy if someone does not serve me a cake because of something concerning my sexual orientation.

I make an example: suppose a mixed couple (a black and a white) are denied a marriage cake, because the owner’s holy book says that it is wrong to marry if you are not the same race (assuming that there is such a thing). After all the owner can defend himself appealing to his religious morality and conscious.

Would you condone it? If not, why not? Because your holy book is a better excuse to discriminate than his holy book?

And why would that be, since both gods have the same evidence of being true (zero)?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sojourner]

That guy doesn't speak for me. And you're misrepresenting my position. I'm more of a radical libertarian on these issues. People really should have the right to refuse service for any reason

Of course he doesn’t. But it does illustrate how the discrimination is the same. So, you’d be down with, “I don’t wanna serve black people because Jim Crow.” That’s nice.

The Christian baker is being unfairly targeted because he simply won't do anything against his conscience

No, the “Christian” Baker is unfairly targeting people whom he feels are icky. As a Christian, Jesus teaches him to include the outcast, to show mercy, to be hospitable. If the guy doesn’t agree with homosexual marriage, then he shouldn’t marry a gay man. But simply serving the couple does not violate anything Jesus teaches. In fact, in your little world, the Good Samaritan would have never happened. Again: That’s nice.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here's one...LGBT Wedding Photographers
They do a great job, but note that the famous lawsuit against the photographer in Texas was partly about the advertisements. Cindy and Sharon, here, haven't got even one 'straight' wedding in their portfolio. Not one...not even the ones that look like they MIGHT be.

Do they refuse to work for straight couples, or are they just not the targeted demographic?

And nobody has sued Cindy and Sharon. They do a good job for the clientele they prefer to serve. Kudos to them, and if anybody attempted to sue them for discrimination, the plaintiff would be laughed out of court.

If the situation is as you describe, and if California protects sexuality as a protected class, any straight couple who they refused service to could sue. The fact no one has (yet) doesn't make it wrong for anyone else in a similar situation to do so.

Someone has to be first. Consider Rosa Parks.

 

[dianaiad]

You applied to work at a private school, not a public one. There is a bit of a difference. This bakery was a public bakery. When one sells to the public one loses that ability to discriminate against the public. Once again, substitute "black" for gay and how what the baker did was wrong should become obvious.

One loses that ONLY when the group being discriminated against happens to be politically correct. Or rather, when the group being discriminated against is a group that the politically trendy LIKE.

It is, in and of itself, an insidious form of discrimination on the part of the folks advocating forcing others to bend to their opinions.

 

[dianaiad]

Of course he doesn’t. But it does illustrate how the discrimination is the same. So, you’d be down with, “I don’t wanna serve black people because Jim Crow.” That’s nice.


No, the “Christian” Baker is unfairly targeting people whom he feels are icky. As a Christian, Jesus teaches him to include the outcast, to show mercy, to be hospitable. If the guy doesn’t agree with homosexual marriage, then he shouldn’t marry a gay man. But simply serving the couple does not violate anything Jesus teaches. In fact, in your little world, the Good Samaritan would have never happened. Again: That’s nice.

....and so your opinion of what Jesus would say/do trumps theirs to the point that you feel justified in having the government enforce your view?

 

[74x12]

Of course he doesn’t. But it does illustrate how the discrimination is the same. So, you’d be down with, “I don’t wanna serve black people because Jim Crow.” That’s nice.

I wouldn't be personally down with it. However I have to defend people's right to do so. (Obviously there would need to be exceptions like hospitals would still have to serve anyone etc.)

Really it's just classic liberalism to defend people's right even when you disagree with them. As the famous quotation goes "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

No, the “Christian” Baker is unfairly targeting people whom he feels are icky. As a Christian, Jesus teaches him to include the outcast, to show mercy, to be hospitable. If the guy doesn’t agree with homosexual marriage, then he shouldn’t marry a gay man. But simply serving the couple does not violate anything Jesus teaches. In fact, in your little world, the Good Samaritan would have never happened. Again: That’s nice.

First of all the man attacked by thieves was in trouble. In fact he would be possibly dying without help. Needing a birthday cake made in your own specially significant way is not reasonably comparable. Although I do feel the pain. It would be annoying and it could be offensive. It wouldn't offend me because I understand where the baker is coming from, but it could offend someone else. Yet, again I say it's not comparable to a good Samaritan situation.

Secondly, there is man's law and God's Law. In God's law we are obliged to be like the good Samaritan. But when you combine the two laws; you end up with a theocracy. Since you keep taking my positions to the extremity; then it is permissible for me to do the same to yours. So the extremity of your position right now is a theocracy.

I agree that serving the couple is a good thing to do. However not in a way that makes you join into what you personally consider to be offensive to God. So if you can only offend a human or God; then you have to offend a human. And it's not that you desire to be offensive to anyone.

 

[dianaiad]

You can believe what you like. You're just not allowed to discriminate against members of a protected class. We've tried having free for all "serve who you like" situations before. Turns out they turn out badly, and as a society, we've decided we'd rather limit who you can discriminate against rather than allow for the bad stuff.

It's a bit of an either/or situation. Collectively, we've decided the current system is better than the alternative. Yes, it means people are restricted in certain ways, but we've decided that is preferable and less onerous than the ways people's freedoms are restricted if we don't have these protections.

Ultimately, it boils down to this. Someone is going to lose out. Would you prefer it were the bigots or the people just being themselves?

I would prefer to err on the side of protecting religious freedom, exactly the way the writers of the constitution intended. You know, when they made freedom of religion not only the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but the only one mentioned TWICE?

 

[dianaiad]

Already explained twice, I'm not explaining again. You would not be making this argument in defence of denying service to a black or multi-racial wedding.

yes, I would. I would make this same argument. Then I would either find a better caterer for the couple, or do the work myself for them.

That depends entirely on how the school advertised the position and its requirements for teachers. I have no idea of the details.

So...a school owned by religious people who have to abide by the state rules regarding the sort of education given (the kids have to pass the same exams 'public' schools give in order to have their diplomas recognized) and who will accept students from every walk of life, has the right to decide upon teaching staff according to religious beliefs, when no other business can, by law, discriminate against an employee because of his/her religious beliefs?

Minefield there.

I happen to believe that this school DOES have that right, even though, as an English teacher, nothing I taught touched upon religion.

In any case, it's irrelevant. Discrimination being justified in one case does not mean it is in this case.

It does if it is based upon the SAME THING, that is, the religious beliefs of the business owner.