In 2018 the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case in favor of the cakeshop, which had originally refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The couple sue the cakeshop, claiming illegal discrimination (in Colorado) but the cakeshop won the case not because of its merits, but because US Supreme Court ruled that the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were biased... against Christians.

Don’t forget to take into account that religious liberty is a real thing in the US... literally the first thing spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That’s why the court considered the state commission’s bias against the religious person’s exercise of their sincerely held belief. Plus, you know, the whole “state can’t compel speech” thing (also part of the Bill of Rights) kind of makes the resulting decision pretty unsurprising.

They are referring to the supreme court case revolving around a bakery in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake if it was going to be served at a gay wedding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

Sure, I've never heard it described that way. That makes it sound like the point of asking to be served is to punish and frustrate the bakery. I've never heard civil rights protests called the "serve my lunch racist!" debate.

The sentiment behind the phrase "bake my cake bigot!" seems to trivialize the issue of being discriminated against by a public business and incorrectly attributes malice to the person being discriminated against.

I'm not attributing any ill-intent to you but wanted to give feedback on that terminology which is why I asked the question. Thanks for your response.

When I read about the cake shop story, I believe the reason I didn't automatically side with the gay couple was because it appeared they visited multiple shops, specifically looking for a shop that would not accommodate their request to make an overtly "gay-themed" cake. Even when they found the shop that was sued, the baker offered to make them alternative cakes, just not one that had their preferred phraseology. It seemed more like they were trying to make a point/easy cash grab, which ultimately backfired.

And I'm glad that you've illustrated my point perfectly. Having misinterpreted my statement to be homophobic, you've chanted the magic words to summon the specter of censorship.

Where exactly do you see homophobia in their comments?

See, this is the problem right here. Whenever people like you hear something they disagree with you'll start screaming "bigot" or "homophobe" or "nazi". How are we supposed to have a mature, civilised discussion about these things?

I find it unacceptable of accusing people of things they didn't do.