A business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

I genuinely thought this ruling would go the other way, but I can appreciate why it didn’t. The demarcation of rights is fraught with complexity.

Except if the reason they are refusing them service is because they are a member of a protected class. This was a core issue of the civil rights movement.

It could be argued that forcing a business owner to provide a service they don’t want to perform is assault by the state (protected classes notwithstanding).

What if a business owner’s religion precludes then from serving a protected class or someone with a disability? Which takes precedence?

But the business owner in this case is specifically offering to provide the service (baking a cake to your requirements) already. Unless they aren't, and they just offer a number of predesigned, off-the-shelf cakes, but it doesn't sound like that's the case here.

Not according to the civil rights act of 1964. Or the americans with disabilities act of 1990.

Baking isn't a public service.

It is a 'public accommodation' within the meaning of the legal definition: i.e., a place where the general public may freely enter and do business. Civil rights law forbids discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race, religion, or national origin. If a Christian baker said, we don't serve Jews, they'd get sued in a minute.

in what part it says sexual orientation though.?

Why not? If it's a service available to the public, it must be a public service, no?

Likewise, there are other public bakeries more than willing to take cash. Let the market do its thing.

they are not forced too, it's their business

Yes they are, this is what the civil rights movement was all about, you can't discriminate based on a large number of protected classes

are gays a protected class?

it damn well should be, since gay marriage is now legal

are straigts a protected class?

Exactly. That's why I don't bake for asians.

i think the argument is that, while refusing to serve the gay couple at all would be illegal discrimination, refusing to make a cake with their specific design is not. although i find it gross that people would have an issue making this type of cake, i find the free speech angle somewhat compelling in this case.

Per the article, the baker did not know a specific design, he categorically refused to make any custom cake for them.

>The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Phillips’s free speech rights had not been violated, noting that the couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down.