I believe private businesses should be allowed to choose their customers.. but they should have to have a sign or state in any advertising their bigotry so THE PUBLIC can also make a choice

I feel like we're running into new ground which the "sharing economy" is going to force us to evaluate more carefully and the problem is that we have an antiquated court system filled with a lot of old people who aren't moving fast enough or thinking deeply enough about what it means to make decisions like these. We want to say that small businesses should have the right to do what they want to, but if you allow religious exceptions, you have to wonder what that means on private vs public business. At what point are you no longer a "small business"? At what point do you have the right to refuse service to someone who is part of "the public." It gets scary for minorities because it's a hare's breath away from saying "no colored people allowed," mainly because a religious exception can be based on whatever bullshit you believe that day or how you interpret it. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible about women being subservient to men. What happens when a business says that they don't serve women without permission from their father or husband? It's well within the interpretation of Christianity that a woman's voice is second to a man's. Not a slippery slope at all. Or better, what happens when a small day care decides that they can spank your child because it's within the boundaries of their faith and it's clear that they're a Christian day care. I'm not saying I have a solution, but rather these are nuanced arguments and going hardcore on someone's rights as a business can have unintended consequences if not examined thoroughly.

I feel strongly that private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. In fact, that right is protected by law in most states, as it probably should be. Let people vote with their wallets (besides, do you really want to be somewhere where you're not welcome)? However, I draw the line when it comes to government employees, officers, or elected officials. They must serve EVERYONE, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

I'm not a big fan of forcing people to do things, even if it's what we think is the right thing. I think there are plenty of people who are willing to serve the LGBTQ population that it's more a problem for businesses who will lose business than LGBTQ couples.

Not enough information to be clear about what happened.

If the advertisement for the short-term rental was clearly labeled as heterosexual exclusive, she might have had a justification. After the inquiry? I don't think so.

=====
The baker was objecting to being forced to perform extra work he did not want to do. He was justified. For any reason. Making it religious worked for him, but was not necessary.

He did not refuse to sell a cake that was already on the shelf for sale. That is illegal.

I’ve been telling everyone that most of scotus is constitutional minded and not as biased as most would want to believe

If you have a public business. You should serve the public! Simple as that.

Very good news. What most people don't know is that in the Colorado case the courts hands were tied as at that time gay marriages were still not legal in that state. It will interesting to see what happens in Oregon but since gay marriage is legal there it will make for some complications. Woe to the country when discrimination gets a nod from our highest court.

I will never understand anyone who opens a business, but will refuse business.