You make a very astute point here. Undoubtedly, like it or not, this is the same analytic thinking that the Court undertook. To have decided otherwise might have opened the door to much more egregious activities. Even though the ruling was quite limited in scope, it was nonetheless, I think, prescient.

Uh oh, we have someone making sense over here.

@indirect76 Right? It's cute to watch the Libtards have heart attacks over this.....gawd forbid we protect FREEDOM for business owners to make their own business decisions......

Did you read about the details of this case?

The cake shop owner simply refused to provide the cake because it was for a same sex wedding. It was not about the design of the cake.

[theguardian.com]

@Ellatynemouth That's NOT true. He offered them any pre-made, pre-decorated cake they wanted.

@SkotlandSkye

He turned them down because they gay. They were not asking for an obscene design. They were asking for the same thing straight couples ask for.

This cake maker was not complaining about the design.

You care about animals but you condone homophobia. I am astounded.

@Ellatynemouth You have no idea to whom you are speaking. I was one of the activists and Lobbyist who got "don't ask, don't tell" done away with. I used to be the director of a LGBT non-profit association AND I am one of the founding members of the LGBT Marriage Alliance. I spent $12K going to Seminary in 1993 to become an ordained minister JUST to marry LGBT people and Pagan & Atheist people. The photo attached is me doing a Lesbian wedding in 1996. Think about that. Anyhow, what you are forgetting is that we have FREEDOM in this country -- and I also wore a uniform once to defend that freedom. The case in question, the baker very much said they could have any pre-decorated cake. He has that RIGHT. I amy not like it, but I will wear a uniform again if necessary to defend that right...Just as I will defend someone's right to burn a flag or a tattoo artist refusing to do a tattoo of Hitler. You can't force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs whether you agree with them or not. This is about Freedom...which I SUPPORT FULLY even if I disagree. Your assumption that I agree with the man's opinion is nothing but trying to incite an argument.

@SkotlandSkye

I disagree.

We are talking about 'services' offered to the public. A shop on the High Street. An open door.

Crucial word here - PUBLIC.

If his business was not open to the public, then all well and good. He would have the right to pick and choose.

The public however, is made up of lots of different types of people - gays, blacks, Jews, whites, Christians, atheists, lesbians, trans etc

There are already businesses such as florists, guesthouses and other cake shops that have made the headlines for denying services to gay people.

This is unacceptable. And if faith based businesses are allowed to discriminate then it opens the floodgates to further types of discrimination. Would Muslims be turned away, or unmarried couples...?

The list goes on.

If you are still defending this man then at least agree he should display a sign in his shop window: 'We do not cater to same sex weddings'.

At least that way gay couples would be spared the embarrassment and humiliation of being turned away.

@Ellatynemouth So, a cake decorator is an artist. This man specifically crafts his cakes and handpaints most of them. He has the right and the freedom to choose what he wants to paint/design/create. This is what the court determined. Would you have the courts order a Muslim painter to paint a portrait of Allah if a client requested it? Would you order a Jewish T-Shirt designer to create a T-Shirt of Hitler? Or, would you order a Christian tattoo artist to do an atheist tattoo or a "God is Dead" tattoo just because someone is willing to for it and wants it? Similarly, would you order an Atheist tattoo artist to do a tattoo of Jeebus if they didn't want too? Listen, I don't have to agree with someone's religious convictions....but I do have to --- and always will ----defend their right to have those convictions. It's Constitutional Law.

Somehow I feel that wouldn't go over

@LadyAlyxandrea I would love for you to try that and see what happens.

@kmdskit3 I would try but my moral compass christians say I don't have won't let me

@LadyAlyxandrea Perfect response!

Right, and now, thanks to the SJW regressive crowd, you canNOT so discriminate if you wish to - do you see how that's a TERRIBLE prededent?

I think that's the direction the court was leaning, but the majority opinion stopped short of setting out any such broad principles, and instead focused pretty narrowly on the specific facts and circumstances of this particular case.

Someone could refuse to provide cakes for First Communions, Confirmations, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, bat miztvahs, and a whole host of other religious ceremonies. Part of me wants to open a bakery just so I can refuse service to the theists.

I got it. Just think joining "them" is the issue. There is no them..All Christians do not think and behave the same. Just as all members here don't. I have heard the most racist comments by other white people because they mistakenly thought I was one of "them." I apologize if I am being too serious if you meant this as a joke

@gigihein I did not mean it as a joke, however my mind wondered into the weeds! I did not mean very Christian wants to make this a Christian Nation, but I have heard it so often said...a great many people are working toward making this country into a Christian Nation! One such person, would be Franklin Graham, who does have some clout...there are others, but they do not come to mind. Then there are personal observations back in Ga, where people are doing whatever thing they can, pushing for our country to be a Christian Nation.

@Freedompath I get it
I don't think it is a majority..i think it is partially the constant news of Trump supporters is so exaggerated it seems like it.i feel your pain.I just don't want to mirror what I dislike

everyone would be yelling "war on (poor, poor) Christians !"

@evergreen exactly!!

Technically no but it is considered one

Sometimes it appears to be a dogma here making those whose views differ being wrong. There are many places to buy cake.

So all the odds are stacked in favour of theism.

That much is true. Well, "religion" is probably a better word than "theism" here, but I take your meaning. The First Amendment and statutory law both privilege in a variety of ways.

That I say this is true should not be understood as the same thing as saying that I like it.

Thank you. I agree.

Not serving a woman if her heads not covered, menstruating, had an abortion, uses birth control, etc. ? All of these examples could be used in the name of religious freedom. According to the bibble, not a typo, slavery could be justified and I'm sure there are plenty of peckerheads who would love to say their religion won't allow them to socialize or sell anything to non-european Americans. Also rape and stoning people to death over minor infractions could be justified with bibblical passages. Commerce is the public square or central to our country and if what you are advocating becomes a supreme court decision millions could be economically disenfranchised. Just like mormons are not allowed multiple wives the government can, does and should control the more public aspects of religious practices. Of course all this is ignoring whether the bibble, especially the new testament, actually condemns homosexuality.

LOL, that's not "for LGBT rights". See I can tell because after the comma it said "but they"...dumbass.

If you're straight and someone won't serve you then that's acceptable if their religion deems it because that's what just happened.

@kmdskit3 I don’t care if the reason is religious or not. People should be free to choose who they do business with.

You're obviously not all for LGBT rights at all.

@indirect76 That is not, cannot and should not be an absolute right which, according to what you've said, is what you're advocating.

@Gwendolyn2018 make cakes?

@Ellatynemouth I am, but that relies entirely on what you mean by rights.

@indirect76

Next time you're denied service in a shop, because you're straight, let me know.

@Gwendolyn2018 I didn’t make it sound anything like that. You interpreted it that way. I simply said that their rights should stop at forcing other people to do things. How did you make such a jump?

@Ellatynemouth If I were denied service for any reason, I would not give a single shit, and would certainly not try to force anyone to do anything about it.

@Gwendolyn2018 I’d say that’s all well & good except the handicapped example.

@Gwendolyn2018 Yes. If Walmart really wants to bar readheads, then by all means, let them. I’m sure it would be great for business.

The last sentence was sarcasm.

@RonHunt Well I’m glad you are certain that your opinion is right and mine is wrong. Congratulations!

@indirect76 I tend to agree. If they choose to small a segment they won't be in business for very long. It's really that easy. Also if word gets out that they are not selling or working with certain groups they will find themselves being boycotted. I'd tell friends why not to shop there.

@morlll I’m just not about forcing people to do things they don’t want to, it’s that simple.