Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[Kamala]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

[Kamala]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

[Kamala]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

It is becoming increasingly popular on the left to say that Christianity is all about hate of non-Christians.

That's true, but it doesn't excuse Carpetbagger's blatant straw man.

[Kamala]

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

There is a difference between a) selling a product which already exists, and b) using one's skills to create a new product for a specific purpose.

Should an artist be forced to paint a painting that he doesn't want to paint?

If that artist is willing to paint the same painting for a straight customer, there's no reason for her to not paint the same painting for a gay customer.

[Kamala]

Fundamentally, a "gay wedding cake" is no different from a "regular wedding cake." The product, in essence, is the same. The only thing different is the people using it.

A baker should be able to refuse to serve a customer if they ask for something explicit - a cake covered in swastikas, for example. It doesn't matter if the customer is white, black, Jewish, or gay, the baker would never make a swastika cake. And that right to refuse should be extended to all potential cakes the baker may be asked to make. If a baker hates horses, he can refuse to make a cake with horse decorations. If a baker hates gays, he shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to them if they want some generic wedding cake.

[Kamala]

The problem most people aren't getting about this case is that this isn't just about cakes - having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent. Sure, it's cakes today. But what if every business owner decides to stop serving/catering to LGBT?

Laws are normative, they apply to everyone. Thus, they must not just work "for the current situation" where just one specific baker refuses to make a cake. They must work in a theoretical situation as well - what if every baker in a town refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they disagree with it? What if every baker refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple's wedding because they claim their religion disapproves of it? What if every bake refused to bake a cake for a wedding between a man and a divorced woman? Even if these scenarios don't exist in real life, the law put in place must be able to provide a solution in them.

[Kamala]

"having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent" That's the idea.  It is good to have such rulings a precedent because it will have far reaching effects.  My dream Is this sets off a set of dominoes which eventually can strike down Title II of the Civil Rights Act and numerous state and local ordinances.  One this happens, there will be no more religious freedom issues with small businesses.  At least if I were on the court, I would rule that way.

Thank God you're not.