The Cake Case Revisited

[Ravenshire]

(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.

It's not a cake I'd want to eat either, but the point that the couple was discriminated against doesn't go away just because they take their business elsewhere. Discriminatory business practices need to be exposed and the perpetrators punished and this is a case of discrimination.