Conservative Conservationists wrote:It is tricky because there are many competing issues including
1) Religious freedom - Should people be forced to provide supplies for an event their faith is against? If so, its a drastic choice between surrendering your career or going against your religion
2) Business choice - Theoretically both business and customer should be able to choose whom they do business with. I would find it ridiculous to refuse to serve a gay couple a standard meal at a pub which already has a fixed price menu. However if it is a price that can be changed/negotiated, it will be near impossible to prove that you did not get a better price because you are homosexual. In that sense, its easy to discriminate by higher prices.
3) Manner in which refusal is performed - There is a clear difference between a polite and rude refusal. The mental anguish on a certain method of refusal could be a legal case in itself.
Overall I am against the action being forced, because it was a special event for a wedding in which people should have their own freedom to believe in or not. If this same gay couple wanted a cake for a birthday, there would be no real reason to refuse on religious grounds so I would support a forced sale.
Yet what really gets me is why the couple wanted to take it this far. Was there no other baker?
Most likely more of a principal thing. Businesses can't discriminate against protected classes under federal and state laws when they provide businesses licensed for public commerce. They had access to a lawyer and non-profit which footed the bill on the filing and arguing of the case.
I mean some can argue about it till their blue in the face, it does not matter. We've seen what happens when businesses are allowed to discriminate, we had to make laws so they can't.... we're not going back. Businesses licensed to provide a public accommodation do not have religious liberty, they surrendered it when they incorporated, got a license and opened their door to the public.





