Q.60 Religion shouldn’t give anyone the right to refuse service to people just because they disagree with them.

The full question (or in this case statement) is: Religion shouldn’t give anyone the right to refuse service to people just because they disagree with them. I asked ChatGPT to summarize the case of the Christian baker who refused to bake a gay-themed cake because it went against his christian convictions. Here are some excerpts:

"In 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, visited Masterpiece Cakeshop seeking a custom wedding cake to celebrate their marriage. [Jack] Phillips, a Christian baker, declined to create the cake because he believed that designing a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would conflict with his religious beliefs about marriage."

"A later and somewhat related Supreme Court case was 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, involving a website designer who objected to creating wedding websites for same-sex marriages. In that case, the Court ruled more directly on compelled expressive speech, holding that the government could not compel an artist or designer to create expressive content that conflicts with their beliefs."[1]

I expect the questioner is referring to cases such as these where a Christian refuses to be compelled to speak or create messages that are at odds with their Christian belief. Apparently the questioner disagrees with the Supreme court in their decision that people cannot be compelled to express ideas or content that conflicts with their religious beliefs. That is in accordance with the first amendment's guarantee that "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." That guarantees the right to say what you believe, and refrain from saying what you don't believe.

Apparently this questioner would be quite pleased if Christians were compelled to state things they did not believe. Such people pay no attention to the Golden rule: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you..."(Mat 7:12) Since this questioner does not appear to care for the Golden rule, let us put the shoe on the other foot. Let us allow Christians to compel the speech of others. So let us impose the following, since we're imposing speech, because it is believed that people should not be allowed to refuse compelled speech or service due to personal beliefs.

An employer dictates that:

Every employee must place on their desk a sign, or hang on the wall behind them a banner that says: "Jesus Christ is Lord and is coming soon to judge the living and the dead."
Another employer working in what he knows to be a predominantly Muslim area requires every employee - including Muslims - to wear a badge that says "Muhammad is a false prophet and the Mahdi is the anti-Christ"
Another employer with locations in predominantly gay neighborhoods requires his employees to wear a badge that says:

"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
(Lev 20:13)

And when customers enter the establishment, employees are required to greet them with "Good day, Sodom and Gomorrah are still an ash heap. How can I help you?"
Yet another employer who runs a lab that does medical tests for hospitals doing what he considers to be child mutilation by offering sex change operations for children as well as adults, requires his employees to wear a large badge that states:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27)

And the employer requires all emails to be signed with:
"Sincerely, since we are all 'fearfully and wonderfully made.'" (Ps 139.14)

Do you think such practices are outrageous? That they should be illegal? If so, then you've agreed with the Supreme court that just as Christians cannot compel others to state Christian speech they do not believe, neither can they be compelled to state things they do not believe. Agreeing that the above is outrageous, yet opposing Christians being allowed to "refuse service" based on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech shows a level of hypocrisy that is rarely admitted by anyone.

On the other hand perhaps you agree that Christians should be allowed to do this. Because what you really want is to compel Christian speech, and you realize the hypocrisy of being able to compel their speech when they cannot compel others to speak or condone what Christians believe. In this case you're setting up a scenario for civil war. Who compels whom? Since it's not based on what's morally right, it will be based on who is physically stronger - who has the strength and power to compel the other to do what they want. Is that what you want?

If you are adamant that that's what you really want, then you've just agreed that Jesus was right to do the cleansing he did at the temple after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt 21.1-13); a rather small scale cleaning. Further it will be right to do again on a grand, global scale when he comes again in glory at his second coming. In that cleansing Jesus will send his angels to remove all the wicked from the face of the earth. (Matt 13.41-42) Because when he starts his eternal kingdom, he will insure: "Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21:27) Are you ready for that? Are you prepared to face your maker who, "after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell." (Luke 12.5)

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you don't really agree with Christians being able to compel speech as they fit, or Jesus ridding the world of people who would do evil by compelling Christians to speak evil and do evil. No, the clear implication of the question is that you want Christians to do things your way, and only your way. Their rights and beliefs do not matter. It's your way or the highway. In a way I understand that. Because God takes a similar approach. Repent and believe and do things his way; or have it your way, and be cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt 8.12)

Of course the difference between you and God is God is holy and is right and just in doing everything he does. We humans are evil (Matt 7.11), have tainted motives (Matt 12.34) and have no right to impose our will on anyone but ourselves. God is holy and just and all his acts are righteous. (Rev 16.5) But God doesn't force people. We all have a free will to follow him into what is right, or reject him and go our own way - to destruction. So this is your opportunity to repent of that evil desire - of wanting Christians to be compelled to do what they consider to be evil. Here you have an opportunity to do as Jesus suggests, and learn what God means when he says:

I desire mercy, not sacrifice. (Matt 9.13)

Let me help get you started:
God desires to give mercy to those who are repentant and seek it.

He takes no delight in people who have departed from God's will and word and have taken up practices and beliefs based on their own preferences and traditions - and who want others to follow them in their rebellion. (Ezek 33.11)

So which will it be? Repent and acknowledge that Christians have a right to refuse that which they consider evil, or keep your sinful attitude now, knowing the day is coming when:

The Son of Man [Jesus] will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(Matt 13.41-42)

Duane Caldwell | May 22, 2026
Follow @rational_faith_

Notes

1. A ChatGPT summary of the Jack Phillips Masterpiece Cakeshop case accessed 5/17/26
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a0a7d0c77cc8191bbeb981a00648577
Back

Image
"Traditional cakes only" Image AI generated using GabAI