Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Mister Agenda]

CL, the intent of public accommodation laws is to prevent people from being hassled or denied service because of who they are. Those laws protect blacks from being denied a table in a restaurant, Jews a room in a hotel, and in states where public accommodation laws are applie3d to sexual orientation, from bakers refusing to bake you a cake.

In the examples you provide in each case, it is the job of the baker to bake the blasted cake. The baker doesn't have to put a message on the cake that they disagree with, like 'gay sex is great' or 'immigrants are people too'. Whether you want the cake for a pro-choice or pro-life rally is not the baker's concern. Whether it's for a baptism or bar mitzvah is not the baker's concern. The baker's job is to bake, and we already have too many people using their 'religious convictions' to get out of doing things that their job reasonably entails.

Writing on the cake is a separate matter, and the law is settled in the states where it applies. You don't have to write 'everybody should get gay married' but you might have to write 'have a wonderful marriage Roger and Steve', because it's a message you would write for any other couple and the only thing you're changing is the names. If it falls under your state's public accommodation laws, you'd have to bake a cake for a pro or anti-gay party, but wouldn't have to write a pro or anti-gay message on it.

This baker is only being required to bake the same sorts of cakes for gay or trans people that he would bake for anyone else. If he has already established that his shop doesn't make pink and blue cakes for anyone, he doesn't have to for gay or trans people. The law only requires him to treat them the same as he would other human beings.