Sure, . . afterwards. ;)

Yes and no. Yes he refused to offer the service of cake creation. And no, it wasn't simply because of who they were.
Again, JUST LIKE the Hitler B-Day cake, it was a refusal to express a specific sentiment with the cake created. Again, the 'smaller selection of goods' referred to [in error] by the court refers to…

Did I miss one. I thought the only basket on BC was the Harry and David basket they made that party spread from. If there was fruit in that, it was incidental.

Look at the ruling. The facts in evidence is that he refused to CREATE a cake for their ritual, but he offered to sell them anything else in his repertoire.

You're not entitled to the facts you wish to have. The controversies did not involve specifics because the potential customers led with 'they wanted a cake CREATED to celebrate their wedding' and the baker responded that he could not create a cake for that purpose, but they were free to purchase any other service or…

Never follow a glee club instructor to a second location.

"I'd argue that saying "I can't serve gay people because of my religion" is pretty explicitly . . ."

Be healthy. I'd say 'stay out dat liquor aisle' but I don't think Walgreens carries liquor anymore. And if you need liquor this late in the evening, who am I to glance askance?

I know what the court held, and I'm not getting into the critique of that holding. But your case does not delve into the distinction you're trying to make. It elides it. The guy said I'm not going to make a special specific cake that celebrates your gay marriage, but you can purchase any other cake. Absent…

First off, you aren't interpreting the Constitution. You are interpreting statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in this case.
And yes, under the Civil rights act, state of residence or recreational drug use are not protected classes. But nobody tests those waters because it's counterproductive to their business or…

It was not a blanket refusal.

All I can say is you are wrong in you assessment under the law. To detail the myriad ways would needless push me into avenues that would appear condescending, but it's simply not how statutory construction works. 'Common sense understanding of intent' is not a standard of review, certainly not when plain language of…

Your response, coupled with the sentiment of mattepntr below that he's "just seeing these businesses wanting to target a group of people they don't like,' lie at the root of why discussions of this matter are so contentious. 90% of the time, people aren't even discussing THE SAME THING.

https://www.youtube.com/wat…

In your analogy, is the US government Christianity's 'Dad,' and Islam, Judiasm, Sikhism, etc. someone else's kids?

Who's complaining about 'hearing opinions?'

Ironically, not a year before the gay wedding cake renaissance exploded, there was a story about a courageous baker who refused to bake a Hitler themed cake ordered by the parents for a boy's birthday party. The parents were white supremacists, and the facebook-iverse was virtual high-fiving this baker and calling…

Like the viewing audience for the bit, eh?

Legal grounds? Sure there is. Religion in protected under the law. By your admission, orientation explicitly isn't.
Feel free to make a moral argument by analogy, but the legal grounds are right there on the page.
MoF, the omission wasn't one of oversight. Look at the statutory history and you'll see sexual…

As an admitted pedant, it provides me unending fascination that;
until a law is passed, the mantra is 'it's not special rights, it's EQUAL rights'
then the instant the law is in force, the mantra changes to 'that's different, they're not a PROTECTED class.'