text: I would disagree a bit with you there; I think that is exactly the way to approach this particular type of case at this time, although more narrowly. It would be difficult (especially for a Christian), and probably counterproductive, to try to convince the justices that practicing his religion entails a broad refusal to serve a certain group.  Refer back to my original post...It's a much more tenable argument to say that certain SPECIFIC services require an extraordinary level of personal involvement in an event, beyond that of simply vendor of common goods or services. In this case the event is one he sees as a mockery of one of his religion's sacred rites. Thus, forcing him to be a participant violates his ability to practice his religion. He could reasonably claim the same if asked to make a wedding cake for a "black mass" wedding for heterosexual Satanists.
  
  Trying to include the freedom of speech issue would just muddy the waters and endanger success at this point, I think.