When anyone purchases a business license, they are agreeing to serve the public. That means ALL the public. If you believe your religion allows you to discriminate, you have yourself a truly lousy business model.

It's just another excuse to protect bigoted ideas by the shopkeepers. There's no reason on earth why anyone should have a problem baking a cake or taking pictures or selling pizza. But that's how religion works, it provides cover to bigots and racists and people of all kinds of meanness.

Businesses are created in the "public square." They are protected by public resources, serviced by public roads, and benefit from public support in ways that go beyond just a shop to sell your wares.

Beliefs are created in the absence of data, and so the belief that being gay is "sinful" is just that, a belief. Our Constitution offers freedom to anyone who wants to believe anything, but it does not support them in the public square. The public square is for everyone and nobody should be denied access to it. If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is so offensive to you, then perhaps you're in the wrong business. OR you can stay out of the public square and work out of your house selling only to churches and religious people.

But when you set up a business, and say, "I'm here..." then be there.

I am on the line in this case. Because the business is private, they should be able to not serve a customer for any reason. Colorado's law concerning the LGBTQ community is fairly new and I would have to read it to understand the point of the SCOTUS reading of the law. Does it say that the state can't discriminate or that discrimination laws concern all? It is a much more difficult problem than most make it out to be.

Ok, so my husband and I talked about this and this is my stance: the baker has the right to run his own business the way he wishes, however, they should expect backlash. I'm assuming this is a private business too.

If it was a publicly owned business, then it is a discrimination lawsuit.

Perhaps I'm also in the "Other (Explain)" category too.

This is where a lot of Christians cherry pick things to their benefit. The guy says that making a cake for gays is "against his beliefs." Well...so is doing so for people who are unevenly yolked with you. If that person is another belief system, then say no to them too. This goes for people who do not follow Christianity. There should be a sign on the door that clearly states that they bake only "Christian Cakes."

I think the baker was in violation of Colorado law as it is written. But I also believe that a business owner should have the freedom to decline to provide service to anyone without bringing religion into it at all. I would certainly like the freedom to decline to cater a "post march luncheon" for the KKK.

If the baker is the only baker in town, then there is a monopoly. That could have a consequence of outright prejudice. In these cases I believe that they need to make a compromise or a concession that will allow everyone to have reasonable access to similar services.

If someone is upfront and there is comparable services from other vendors then they have a right to serve who they want. Pretty sure in this day and age that would be a poor business choice. Still,it is a choice that free people should be able to make.

This baker is a piece of crap-bigot who is playing games with LGBT rights. I say boycott him.

I am not familiar with the particulars of this case. If the baker doesn't own the shop, he is obligated to do the job he is paid for. If the baker owns the shop and it's open to the public, he is obligated to serve everyone equally. If he has a line of cakes that are his product, he is not required to make something special that is inconsistent with his line. If he refused because the customer was gay, he is wrong. If he refused because the order was unusual, he is within his rights.

The baker cannot be forced to make a cake he does not wish to make. He has the right to refuse.

But I will say the baker is a shallow person.

If the baker were to operate his business in the sanctuary of a church and posted a sign that says his services are only available to those whose lifestyles he approves he might have legs to stand on. But once he sets up shop on Main Street he has entered the world of commerce where anyone who can afford his service has the right to take advantage of it. He might justifiably refuse to make a 10 foot penis cake but he cannot refuse to make a regular wedding cake. There would be no difference in this than there would be if a black customer wanted a cake and he refused. This is a throw back to the same bigotry that prospered under Jim Crow laws. Any merchant who takes part in blatant discrimination should have his business license revoked. If the baker feels put upon by not being able to profess his religious bigotry as a baker he should move into another business where he will not risk this conflict of conscience. Or he should get a job.

Leonardo Di Vinci was gay. Michelangelo was a bisexual who was primarily on the gay end of spectrum, but both were patronized by the Catholic church for their talents, despite the curch's (non public) condemnation of their sexual orientations.

If the baker sees himself as an artist , then there is a logn history of artists and patrons beign in disagreement about sexual orientation, even if not publicly debated. Still in the past the artists produced product and the patrons purchased the products that they produced.

At issue is that if he is allowed to discriminate, then a restaurant owner or chef may decide they dont' want tt serve certain people. This is a reasonable assumption as they both make food and "presentation" of food is considered "art" in soem circles.

I think the baker has the harder case to prove, when his own religious texts tells him to love his enemy and to judge not, as well as to forgive. It seems to me he is trying to protect his right to his dogmas (on which he wants to discriminate) rather than to protect the actual doctrine teachings (which teaches NOT to discriminate)

I feel like anyone with any business has a right to refuse service so yes the baker a right to do that but on the other hand if they are discriminatory against others for whatever reason they are breaking the law just like black Americans were not allowed to go to the bathroom if it were a white bathroom...back in the 50s and 60s...so I guess I should have voted other...but I mean why would you give a business your money if they were rude and discriminatory against you??

In my wayward opinion, both are viable. If I'm a small business, Bookstore owner for instance, and I only want to carry atheistic material, I'm not going to order religious books just out of principle. If the business advertises to a certain demographic, why can someone who feels offended sue me? I think it's a silly situation that is exacerbated by our legal system. If someone doesn't offer a service to you, go somewhere else and talk as nasty about that company as possible, making their biases known to everyone that will listen. We are in control, not 'them'.

As a business owner I believe the baker should have the right to not serve anyone he he doesn't want to for any reason. It should not involve a government decision at all. He can also suffer any consequences that come his way from the public. When you run a privately owned business what you and another individual do or don't do is between the two of you. When our government tells a private business owner who they have to serve it is no longer free enterprise. That being said I would have made the cake.

If it's a question of just selling cakes over the counter, then you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. However, if he post a sign saying something along the lines of "we reserve the right to refuse to customize cakes if we have a problem with the message", then he's covered. You can choose to take your business elsewhere and that's how the system supposed to work.

Yes, it's discrimination... but I don't want to eat any where I'm not wanted. I feel we are in a point in time where discrimination like this doesn't happen often. I'd rather know where I'm not welcome so that I can spend my money where I'm welcome.

I just don't care enough about getting a cake from a specific place to vote on how the court should rule. I welcome all discriminators to be open about it.

It's a cake. You don't need to know who sees it or eats it when it leaves your store. I think it would be a different story if the gay couple wanted him to write some pro-gay message in the icing. But if it's just the same cake he'd make for anyone else, he has to just make the cake. If he's bent out of shape about it, call the waaaaaaahmbulance. Snowflake!

I’m ambivalent on the issue and for the same reasons as the folks below. It’s similar to a Muslim woman wearing a burka. I’ll fight for her right to wear it while at the same time detesting it. In our town there is a feed store that I used to buy all our animal food at. Then they started putting us Bible verses on their marquee. I started wondering if I still wanted to support them. Then they put up a “No Wolves” sign covering the whole entrance side of the building. I will never enter the store again under any circumstance. This is a very bigoted town but I hope that there are enough folks like me that will also boycott the store and hurt their business somewhat. Wolves are almost as big an issue around here as guns.

This isn't a clear cut issue, unfortunately. I mean, it would be clear were a law to be passed saying that gay people could not go out and buy a wedding cake at all. As it is, they're capable of going to another shop that's more tolerant. So, while I think this baker is bigoted and cruel, he should be allowed to do what his religious convictions tell him to do. That's the idea of religious freedom.

I think that the baker of a privately owned shop has the right to be an ignorant bigot if they want to, BUT they can’t come crying when the backlash hits. And it will. Big time.