The current justification for the people who want to stop marriage equality and otherwise discriminate against gays, lesbians, and transgendered people is something called “religious freedom.” Apparently, in order to exercise your religion freely, you must stop someone else from doing something, or otherwise deny them service or accommodation.
A wiser person than me once said, “Your right to practice your religion ends at the tip of your nose.” The zealous will never believe that, of course, so there is really not much point in trying to convince them. But what of the large majority of people who don’t fall into that category? Free exercise of religion is something most Americans strongly agree with (even most of us who are atheists). Using the battle cry of “religious freedom,” especially with people not well-versed in the issue, is likely to create sympathy for those who would discriminate. I’ve even seen people on here on Kos make arguments that public officials or businesses that serve the general public should be allowed to opt out of dealing with same sex couples who are marrying if they claim religious reasons for doing so.
Without getting into a discussion of whether or not the Bible says homosexuality is a sin (and that is by no means certain), let’s assume for the sake of argument that religious person x believes it is. And because they believe it is, they claim that they, as a public official whose duties include either issuing marriage licenses or officiating at wedding ceremonies, should not be required to do so. Or, as a business person who performs a service for couples getting married, that they don’t have to do flowers or photography for a same-sex wedding because it violates their deeply held beliefs. Sounds all freedomy-religiony at first glance, doesn’t it? Come with me below the orange squiggly cake topper to find out why it’s not.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that forcing a person to get "gay married" violates that person’s religious beliefs if that is something that their church says is wrong. However, insofar as religious beliefs are personal, it becomes difficult to claim it violates your religious beliefs to perform a service for someone else. Performing wedding-related services in your official capacity as a public servant doesn't mean you are endorsing the wisdom or sanctity of any legally valid marriage that you are called upon to license or officiate at, any more than being a public defender and knowing your client committed the crime for which you are defending him or her means you condone that crime.
And what about people in businesses that serve the general public? Well, I would point out that neither a baker nor a florist nor a photographer is a member of the clergy officiating at a religious ceremony. Baking a cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures or video is not a religious act any more than selling used cars is. It’s a cake, not a sacrament, and baking one doesn’t mean you approve or disapprove morally of any given marriage.
It's also inconsistent unless every couple that goes to anyone who performs services associated with a wedding has to have their marriage morally approved by the public servant or business owner before he/she will provide services. Other than ensuring couples meet legal requirements to marry, public officials do not do background morality checks on the couples that come before them. And bakers, florists and photographers don’t even check legal requirements, let alone investigate whether the couples that request their services meet moral tests. And unless you do it for everyone, it calls into question whether you are actually performing the duties of your office or running your business based upon your religious beliefs. And if your actions are not religiously based, it’s tough case to make that your religious freedom is being violated.