So you think a Muslim baker could be forced to make a cake with the text "Allah is a False God"?

Your answer is contrived there is no reason other than deliberately fucking with the baker to ask him to bake that and furthermore any bakery could trivially forbid offensive orders without relying particularly on his religious freedoms.

Meanwhile Jake loves John for instance has a meritorious purpose and is non-offensive.

Can you think of a less contrived test?

A meritorious and non-offensive purpose, in your non-religious opinion, at the complete disregard of the deeply-held beliefs from the other party.

Though I suppose I should rejoice that the law protects Muslims from bigots like you who state elsewhere that their views and people like them are the equivalent of a mental disorder.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36546184

It is meritorious insofar as it is designed to bring joy to another individual and celibate their relationship as opposed to provoking the baker by hiring him to produce a work designed solely to offend him.

Right. As though the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, as traditionally understood for over 1,900 years by Christian scholars (the "inhospitable" argument is an extremely modern take), is not one of the four sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

As if asking a Christian or Muslim (because some Muslims actually do believe the same story and incorporate it into their law) to make a message supporting gay marriage, who takes that literally, isn't meant to be offensive.

We should not treat as equal things which are fantasy and things which are real. Harry Potter isn't real and neither is the story of God nuking a cities because they were perverts. There is no Sin of Sodom. In reality there are folks who are exclusively sexually attracted to people of the same sex and their choice is to live without love or join with people of the same variety.

Trying to make life harder for those folks who are doing nothing wrong to anyone by loving people is unjustifiable moral evil that isn't made less so by explaining the fantasies that justify such.

It's exactly as if you explained to me that how all bald guys were really death eaters and you had to keep them down so that Voldemort doesn't come back.

I mean, pretty much all of these cases aren't about getting websites or cakes, they're being done by activists looking for standing to sue.

This was lampshaded in Masterpiece case that noticed that they went past a whole bunch of cake shops to get to that particular one that would refuse.

Actually, let's do one better. Islam is a religion that still actively stones gay people to death in 7 countries, and while not all Muslims are that extreme, some still harbor deep objections (see public rainbow flag burnings in Canada by them). Force a Muslim to make a cake saying "Let the gays f### Allah." If you think that's repugnant, point made.

What a strange thing to get hung up over. If you were opposed to abortion, you might like to know ahead of time whether the person you're dating might end up aborting your child. Being able to know whether you are breaking the law prior to breaking it is a good thing, and we should be able to bring such cases in more situations.

Restricting ourselves to actual injuries makes it more challenging to use a stream of hypothetical cases to effectively rewrite the law based on imaginary injuries and forces us to deal with reality as we find it which is why we have centuries of jurisprudence with that standard being applied and no reason to abandon the standard other than to help the judges serve in their new role as super legislators the populace isn't entitled to vote out.

Colorado has shown its willingness and eagerness to prosecute purported violations of this kind before, several (two?) of which have ended up before the Supreme Court previously. Their expectation that they would run afoul of Colorado is perfectly legitimate.