Thanks for your response Michael. I think your distinction is a good one. The freedom of religious based organizations (or professionals) to continue to practice or run their business without penalty due to their faith is one of my concerns with respect to this law. I fear that faith-based organizations may lose tax status if they refuse to marry same-sex couples. In fact, the dissenting judges made this point. None of their dissenting arguments were about them not “believing in” same-sex marriage. It was about what would happen to the freedoms of religious organizations to continue to operate under their faith without impunity. I think that’s a fair concern.
In answer to your question, I think it’s obvious that a pastor being forced to perform at same-sex wedding is not the same as serving a hamburger. I only used art because 1) those were the examples of businesses that have been hurt and 2) as you said, I am an artist.
Secondly, I separate the two because there is a difference. You cannot legally refuse service to just anyone. If the basis of your refusal is on sex, creed, color of skin, religion, sexual preference, or disability, that is illegal. With respect to your example of the tattooed person being denied service, it would depend. In some cases, a dress code is required, and in circumstances like that, you could deny service if the person doesn’t conform. But that’s not blanket discrimination. The person has the option to go out and dress accordingly.
Regardless, none of what you mention absolves a Christian from his or her duty to love others, and love is shown in one’s actions.