Regarding human sacrifice, don't be silly. There are perfectly good reasons why human sacrifice is not allowed by law. It is not necessary to assert that religion has no standing under the law to construct a legal prohibition against the practice. In the United States, religion does have standing under the law. The 1st amendment forbids both an establishment of religion and laws preventing the free exercise of religion. And yet human sacrifice is not legal in the United States. Go figure.

It is the principle in Laws' decision that is dangerous, not the specific case. You apparently believe this is a progressive decision that will protect the rights of the weak. Well, if so, your faith is touching. Do you realize it would be very easy to apply the logic of this decision AGAINST religious minorities? Against ANY who object to a law based upon matters of conscience?

"Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture." No, it isn't. It follows logically from Laws' decision. Just because there's no conscription law at present doesn't mean there never will be.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am it stinks all around. This is simply a matter of someone refusing to do their job. Let's try a thought experiment: suppose the man in question was not a Christian but a Muslim. Suppose he got a job at a fast food restaurant and refused to make a bacon cheeseburger, based upon his religious beliefs, and for this he was fired (substitute any scenario you like: a Hindu on a cattle ranch; a Buddhist in a butcher shop; etc.). Suppose he "took his case to an industrial tribune" and invoked his religious beliefs. The judge would only need to remind him that this is not a matter of religion, but of meeting the terms of his employment. Complaint dismissed, case closed. Laws used a cannon when he should have used a flyswatter.

And, finally, let's be clear: Gary McFarlane certainly inconvenienced the couple and likely offended them, but he did not "infringe upon their rights." He did not prevent them from receiving therapy from another counselor. He did not physically attack them, or vandalize their property. He did not offer them up as human sacrifices to his god. He refused to do his job, and for this he was fired. The employer's decision was correct, Laws' decision was wrong. Wrong, and dangerous.