I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.
Not really. It draws a bright line between the state and religion. It does not forbid religion nor does it endorse religion. Founding fathers were of diverse religious beliefs, including none. Jefferson famously clipped out parts of the bible he disagreed with--much like the writers of whatever edition of the bible we're talking about since the Gutenberg press was invented.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution unambiguously declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause underscores the paramount importance of safeguarding religion as a separate class, and it explicitly prohibits Congress from legislating laws that either advocate for or discriminate against any particular religion. This directive serves to preserve religious neutrality on the part of the government, as outlined in our Constitution.
Furthermore, the First Amendment explicitly affirms that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This provision illustrates that Congress's role extends beyond refraining from legislating in favor or against specific religions. It is also incumbent on Congress to ensure that no legislative measures hinder the right of individuals to freely practice their religion of choice.
In essence, by refraining from legislating in a way that directly impacts religious establishments, either positively or negatively, Congress adheres to the United States Constitution's stipulations.
However, if a law exists that seems to promote religion, it would, indeed, appear to contravene the Constitution's explicit directive. Right now we have a law on the books that supports religion which is unconstitutional. No matter how you want to cut it.
Essentially, the government's role should be to exclude religion as a factor in disputes among citizens, consistent with the United States Constitution's stipulation. This mandate ensures the upholding of religious neutrality and the prevention of preferential treatment or discrimination based on religious beliefs. In the case of our imaginative Web designer the government should not recognize religion but only the service denial itself.
If you are a Christian who holds a personal belief opposing same-sex marriage, it's essential to recognize that if you choose to operate within the public sphere, you do so with the knowledge that same-sex marriage is legal. Should your convictions be such that any association with same-sex marriage feels injurious to your faith, you may want to reconsider participating in areas of public service that engage with it. Striking a balance between personal beliefs and public service demands can be challenging, and one must be prepared to navigate this duality without infringing upon the rights of others. It's a matter of understanding that you cannot simultaneously uphold personal beliefs at the expense of public law and expect protections from a Constitution that does not grant you any.
The first amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion. That's what that first clause means. And that isn't something being discussed here at all. 