It was a work for hire service that he refused, the speech argument is pretty flimsy (to me at least). To me it's like trying to say that your hedge trimming service is a creative act, and thus speech, so your landscaping company can deny service to a same-sex couple. I guess reasonable people can disagree, but we wouldn't be as conflicted it it was an interracial couple that he was denying services to. I doubt history will be kind to that SC decision.

Hedge trimming can be done by anyone with a hedge trimming machine. This baker made beautiful unique artistic cakes that were a product of his own life and experiences and sensibilities. Also, a wedding cake specifically celebrates a matrimony whose existence the baker would deny. Any hedge trimming service that satisfied those qualifications would indeed possibly be subject to the same controversy.

Regardless of the context of this case, it's odd that the state can now seemingly force someone to engage their creativity and artistic sensibility for any reason. It is now federal judicial precedence that he must lawfully create a satisfyingly beautiful cake for anyone who= asks. What if it's not beautiful enough? Is that punishable by law? Who judges the beauty?

Probably the baker should have just made a half assed cake...

> Regardless of the context of this case, it's odd that the state can now seemingly force someone to engage their creativity and artistic sensibility for any reason.

No, the state (because the citizens wanted it that way) can merely require you to treat people the same regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation if you are offering services to the public. If you offer services to the public you can't pick and choose based on that criteria. You're free to create whatever you like, for whomever you like, if you're not a public business. Plus you can still refuse services to lawyers, people without shirts or shoes, or people who indent with spaces if you're a public business.

I fail to see how the state not enabling bigotry in services offered to the public constitutes oppression.

> I fail to see how the state not enabling bigotry in services offered to the public constitutes oppression.

If you really can't see it, there has to be some kind of observational defect in your model of the world. Forcing people to do work they don't want to do is bad because compulsory labor is bad. It blows my mind that this is not immediately obvious to people who live in a society that (reasonably) vocally opposes slavery.

Also, "not enabling bigotry" is an insanely stilted way of saying "forcing people to perform labor they don't want to".

> Forcing people to do work they don't want to do is bad because compulsory labor is bad

This is the same tired argument that every bigoted person whines about when they're 'forced' to treat human beings like human beings.

You'll be extremely relieved to know that nobody forced them to open a business that sells products and services to the general public. They made that choice. The only thing they are 'forced' to do is follow the extremely reasonable "don't discriminate" requirement.

If you really can't see it, there has to be some kind of observational defect in your model of the world.

It's a fact, not disputed by either party, that he offered to sell them a generic cake or one with a different message. So it's not true that he denied them service "because" they were gay.

Thought experiment: Imagine an individual woman went into the store and said to him "My son is marrying his boyfriend this weekend. Can you make a custom cake for them?" The baker says no. Should that be illegal?

Thought experiment #2: Imagine an alt-right troll goes into a Jewish bakery and asks for a cake that says "Jesus is Lord". The baker says no. Should that be illegal?

> So it's not true that he denied them service "because" they were gay.

So it's cool to discriminate if you offer something that's separate but equal?

Sorry, I don't think this is a good-faith reply. Would you consider answering my thought experiment questions?

> You'll be extremely relieved to know that nobody forced them to open a business that sells products and services to the general public.

Same goes for Twitter. By your logic, Twitter has no grounds to complain when Trump screws them over for censoring conservatives, because no one forced them to go into business.

Are you really thinking about this? I feel like you're just responding with bad-faith platitudes.

In general, trimmed hedges don't inherently convey a meaningful message, but if you asked someone to trim the hedges into a message that violated your sincerely-held religious beliefs then I think the same principle would apply.

> we wouldn't be as conflicted it it was an interracial couple that he was denying services to

I don't believe you would be able to make a "sincere religious conviction" argument against it - I'm not aware of any mainstream religions that prohibit interracial marriage as part of their doctrine (as opposed to an epiphenomenon of the cultural practices of the people who make up the group).

> I don't believe you would be able to make a "sincere religious conviction" argument against it

People have used sincere religious arguments against interracial relationships for decades if not centuries. The reason it's not invoked now is because we've had a couple generations where the law of the land was obviously morally superior to the scriptures, to the point it's not seriously debated anymore.

As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the scriptures of any major religions regarding interracial marriage (which makes sense, since the modern conception of race didn't exist thousands of years ago when most of them were written). So I'm not sure what "sincere religious belief" those people would have been using in their arguments - just being a Christian doesn't automatically make any sincere belief you hold a religious one. Many religions do have scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality, however.

> So I'm not sure what "sincere religious belief" those people would have been using in their arguments - just being a Christian doesn't automatically make any sincere belief you hold a religious one.

There are absolutely sincere people whose religious beliefs are that interracial marriage is morally wrong[1].

> Reagan says many black athletic stars choose white wives in a willful attempt to make their offspring lighter, challenging God’s plan. “He don’t want them to be like him, so he’ll marry another. … It’s another defiance of God’s law, it’s a worldly way.” And the pastor condemns fellow ministers who perform interracial marriages. “Some of the men in pulpits should have a pantywaist instead of a preacher coat on!”

[1] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/02/19/tennessee-pas...

Arguably the most powerful Christian organization in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, was founded to support slavery.

What's actually in scripture has very little to do with the religious beliefs many profess.

I'm not religious so I don't really support it, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between "my religious organization was founded with the express purpose of supporting slavery, at a time and place when slavery was the most important political issue in the country" and "homosexuality is just one of a long list of things that are banned, but is not called out in any sort of special way"