“We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe.”

That is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said just a few weeks ago when it lent its support for a LGBTQ fundraising concert called LoveLoud Festival.

Why, then, has the church now signed on to an amicus friend-of-the-court brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court between the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay man’s wedding celebration? How does supporting the baker’s refusal to serve anyone who walks into his store foster a community of inclusion? Isn’t it mistreatment to tell a person your business doesn’t serve him because he is gay?

Most of Utah’s Republican state senators have also signed an amicus brief in support of the baker, as has Sen. Mike Lee and the Justice Department.

They claim this case is about more than just equal rights because the baker’s religious rights are at stake. The baker, as a “conscientious objector,” has the right to not be forced to support a gay wedding, and forcing him to bake a cake for a gay wedding would force him to express support contrary to his religious beliefs and therefore violates his First Amendment rights.

The counterargument is that businesses serving the public must comply with state non-discrimination laws.

In a perfect world, the market would decide whether a baker, or florist or photographer who refuses to serve gay patrons can remain in business. Most of the time there are other bakers, florists or photographers willing to fill a market need.

It is difficult to choose a winner when competing rights are at stake. But does baking a cake for a gay wedding really go against religious principles? The LDS Church does not treat someone who bakes a cake for a gay wedding differently than someone who does not.

If baking a cake is speech, what would stop someone from not serving food to a woman on a lunch break because doing so would violate his church’s teaching that women should be at home? What about not serving a lawyer, or a cop or a judge because his church teaches the death penalty is wrong?

Churches provide aid and comfort to victims of natural disasters. Churches don’t tell members not to bake cakes for gay weddings. Churches tell people to love each other, to serve each other and to be kind. Where’s the amicus brief about that?