The Cake Case Revisited

[Joods]

So then what about all those businesses who display signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason"?

If a for-profit business owner in the service industry, paying taxes on the profit they gain, doesn't have the right to choose who they want to provide their service to, then perhaps they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they are being forced to provide services to those they don't want to.

Morally and ethically, yep, it's wrong to use ones beliefs to discriminate, but at the end of the day, the public isn't paying the expenses that business incurs, so the business should be entitled to bake a cake (for example), for whomever they want.

Will it cost them business? Probably, but that's their lesson to learn. They shouldn't get sued over it.

(emphasis is mine)

I have to disagree on this point. The public is exactly who pays the costs these businesses incur. All those costs get passes along to the customers in the price of the products.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason" does not include refusing to serve someone based on reasons deemed illegal. Refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation is no different than refusing to serve someone based on skin color.

Excellent point. My thought was that the Baker shouldn't be forced to make a cake for someone if they don't want to. What if the baker decided to close up shop and no longer make cakes at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that, unless there is overwhelming evidence that the baker violated the rights of someone, then you really can't force a private business owner to make something he doesn't want to.
Furthermore, the people involved could simply take their money elsewhere. After all that, I'd be weary of the baker spitting in my cake if a judge forced him to make one.

That's not a cake I'd want to serve at my wedding, regardless.