runner I didn't expect you to get the integrity, keeping your word part.

As for "Yeah but its fine Robert to promise to be faithful to death to a spouse and then dump her/him when someone better comes along." - just where have I ever said that I'm fine with people dumping a spouse because someone better came along? I'll be interested in seeing that link thanks. Failing a link yet another example of your love of bearing false witness

I do think there are valid reasons why marriages fail (as apparently did Jesus), sometimes reasons why people do need to break commitments (mostly about the other party not keeping their part of the deal) but that does not include getting a better offer.

R0bert

' just where have I ever said that I'm fine with people dumping a spouse because someone better came along? '

nowhere Robert and I wasn't suggesting you did. My point which I thought was obvious is that some disgruntled customer uses Government agents and probably sleazy lawyers to display their Christophic natures and yet its more than ok for many to break their marriage contract/covenant. Its called no fault divorce and yet someone breaks a dubious 'contract' when asked to write something perverted and is fined for refusing.

//Please be honest, do not shilly shally, yes or no.
But would we demand that a Jewish baker make a cake depicting a swastika? Or that a Muslim baker make a cake depicting Muhammad?

My bet is that the judge would have found differently. The cake shop does not refuse service to homosexuals, it simply refuses to perform an icing request.//

I'll show you my answers if you show me yours:

//should a chef have the right to refuse to cook a halal meal for a Muslim? Not to refuse to serve them, just to refuse to serve them what they order because it requires the chef to reproduce sentiments they find highly disagreeable? Should an anti-Semitic chef have the right to refuse to cook a kosher meal for a Jew? Should I have the right to refuse to cook a vegan meal for a herbivore?//

Oh all right then, I'll go first... you tease.
a) Jewish bakers should be excused on grounds of conscience from decorating cakes with swastikas or other Nazi iconography.
b) Muslim bakers should be excused on grounds of conscience from decorating cakes with depictions of Mohammed.
c) Anti-Semitic chefs should be excused on grounds of conscience from cooking a kosher meal for Jews.
d) I should be excused on grounds of conscience from cooking a vegan meal for vegans.

Because it all boils down to the same question: should a tradesman in the food service industry have the right to refuse customers particular services on an arbitrary whim? My oath they should. If they're not worried about the lost profits and the potential for negative publicity, they should be able to serve who they like, what they like, when they like, if they like... within the bounds of the law. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Rhrosty "Yes these customers could go across the road, as will most of their friends and family; or around 80% of us!"

Yes, go ahead. You are FREE to do so.

If a business is happy to turn away potential profits, that's their concern, not yours or the government's.

"The Ashers need to understand all manner of folks and all their families and friends make up the shopping public/customers"

And Mr Prissy Pants needs to understand all manner of folks run shops.

You go to a cake shop for cake, not ideological promotional materials.
Buy the plain cake and decorate it yourself if you must.

Toni Lavis "should a chef have the right to refuse to cook a halal meal for a Muslim?"

Or management allow Muslims to dictate the menu at a KFC?
Where's my "right" to eat bacon, normally available in other KFCs?
No bacon for you!

Choose: Either everyone can refuse anybody (liberty), or nobody can refuse anybody (dictatorship).

Not the hypocrisy of one rule for the leftie-favoured special interest groups, another for the rest.

//Where's my "right" to eat bacon, normally available in other KFCs?
No bacon for you!//

I haven't been to KFC for years. Have they really taken bacon off the menu?

Both the US and Australian constitutions say that the people have a "right" to free exercise of religion. Whether or not such rights are "absolute" is the crux of the issue. I would say that no right is "absolute." Circumstances might arise where a particular right is temporarily suspended. In general a "right" may be exercised so long as public order and safety are not compromised. That is, no "harm" befalls the exerciser, other people, animals, property, among other things. If the right to free exercise of religion were absolute, human sacrifice would be allowed to those whose religion mandated it.