The issue here is whether a state law against discrimination is, or is not, trumped by the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion.  The issue is not about someone using the 14th Amendment to elevate a personal beef or a local law to constitutional status.  In fact, without the 14th Amendment, Missy Sweet Cakes wouldn't have even had an argument that she and hubby were not guilty.  In this case, they were the proponents of the 14th Amendment as that is the only vehicle to apply the First Amendment to the State of Oregon.

The bigger issues is whether a religious belief can trump a secular law such as an anti-discrimination law.  Arguing that religious beliefs trump is a losing argument.  It has to be that way.  If the religious trumps and Christians can discriminate against gays, the Muslims can commit honor killings and sell their 13 year old daughters to the highest bidder.  As soon as we start setting the laws based on beliefs, there is no freedom of religion as there will be one dominant religion now setting the laws.

The issue is whether you can force someone to violate their religious beliefs.

Why do you think it's just fine and dandy to force a Christian organization to hire gays or any other unrepentent sinner?

He will debate Hillary because he will need to debate Hillary. 

He doesn't need to debate Cruz.

And Hillary has yet to debate anyone that will actually stand up to her, or face moderators that will ask her the tough questions.  That all changes in the general election debate.  I predict that Trump will crush Hillary in a debate.

hillary doesn't have the courage to face Trump or anyone else in an actual debate.

and the media trash won't call her on it.

Or maybe the sheep are beginning to become fed up. If so, then people and municipalities, school districts, counties and states will start to ignore orders from DC and when the federal branch becomes insane with anger and jealousy things might start to turn back towards what is right.
I'm counting on a lot of folks finding their testicles in time to stop the complete annihilation of freedom.

Consider anecdotes like the behavior of people during hurricanes (don't evacuate, and then bleat (or demand) help.  Or the woman who sat in her car for more than 3 hours waiting for some free water when a watermain broke in Massachusetts.  Consider the people who want the illusion of security (e.g., TSA, and the various gun confiscation schemes) and the idiot judges that allow them.

I think you have more faith in people than I do... maybe it's because I live in taxachusetts surrounded by morons who will vote for hillary or whatever slug the DNC puts on the ballot.

Good luck with that. As I said, no point in wasting time debating Evolutionary Theory with those "debating" with theological blinders firmly in place.

not directed at you, but it also a gross waste of time to argue with someone that can't fathom how science and theology are not mutually exclusive.  Particularly true with people who hate all things religious.

Yes. Next question.

apparently you don't consider a "male" without a Y chromsome to be a defect.

No, not an expert. But it's factually not the case that all males have a Y chromosome. Additional reading makes it clear that it is not as simple as you seem to suggest. And this is without getting into the sex vs. gender debate.

do you understand the concept of genetic defect?  and birth defect?

Probably because the science is not that simple.

and you think that because?