Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Mr.wizard]

The Painter has already created the paintings nobody had any say as to went into them and they are art, now he is going to sell these paintings to the public. So a gay couple walks into the gallery and says I like that painting I want to buy it and the artist says no I don't sell to homosexuals. That is discrimination I don't give a flying fuck if it's art.

And I would agree with you on this point. 

Now you have the Baker who provides a public service that he advertises to make wedding cakes and you have a gay couple asking for the service that the Baker provides and he says this service isn't available for homosexuals. That is also discrimination and it I don't see why it would matter if it was art?

This is where we disagree. Because there is creative input from the couple, before the construction of the cake. If they were talented enough to make their own cake, they could easily do so, but because they need to go to a baker, they need to discuss with that person what is to go on the cake. In particular - designs to include the cake topper and any wording that might appear on the cake. The baker is the one constructing the cake, using his or her talents. If the baker doesn't feel comfortable putting certain things on the cake, it should be his right to refuse to do it.

No this isn't where we disagree, I think the Baker should be able to refuse a service as long as he refuses it to everyone. If you put a "congrats Chuck and Mary" on a cake I don't see "congrats Chuck and Larry" as asking for something outside of his regular service. It is the same message with different names and the only problem the Baker has, is that the people associated with those names are gay, so it has nothing to do with the message but everything to do with the people.

Also I'm not sure the couple ever got to the design of the cake, seems like they were denied right out the gate.