>

Yeah, like obviously the effect of cases like this should at least make it more difficult to overtly be anti-LGBTQ+ in public, which is a good thing.
I struggle to understand how hiring someone who is LGBTQI can be against an employer's religion.  Paying someone to do a job isn't "agreeing with their lifestyle" or whatever the bullshit line is.  It is, quite simply, paying someone to do a job. >

Because they want to be able to use it against black people, women, everyone… we are just the easiest target >

It pisses me off. Of all the protected classes, religion is literally the only one that is a choice.  And yet an individual's choice is always the one that is allowed to be used to oppress everyone else. >


is a choice

Considering how they indoctrinate children, is not much of a choice for many >

Religion should not be a trump card.
-
Even if my God says hardhats are sinful, I don't gain the right to prevent construction workers from using safety hardware. >

Off topic and playing the devil's advocate here, but what's to stop these companies from discriminating on legal grounds or dogwhistles unless your employer explicitly tells you "we can't hire you because you're LGBT" (which is a thing that happens and its this specific case which seems fairly open and shut).
John Oliver did a segment on juries where prosecutors struck out a black woman from the jury officially because "she was wearing a puffy jacket". It makes just as much sense in context. What's to stop employers to not hire someone "because they weren't the right fit?" >

Really you can get away with just using some generic excuse. But the thing is the people who discriminate on this basis love to say that is why they did what they did.