I think the issue is far more complicated than that. I had the same thought initially but changed my thinking.
The line is drawn, federally, at specific groups legally protected from discrimination. “Color, sex, national origin, disability, creed, family status” (maybe one more?) and, in some states, “sexual orientation or gender”. HOWEVER “Creed” is taken as “religion”, but it’s been long argued that it should cover sexual orientation and identity. Ie, it’s something looked down upon by the morals of particular religions, so if that’s not part of one’s religion, he shouldn’t be discriminated against for the values of his own.
If a business does something discriminatory against these groups (eg hiring, fair housing, associations, etc), they can be sued.
If there is an institutional or government-based discrimination of those groups, it is illegal.
A business CAN generally refuse non-essential services (eg, not medical, emergency, etc) on personal grounds. But if they violate those protected classes, they can be sued. The end result will usually depend on the precedence in that particular court circuit. And, if “sexual orientation” isn’t in that state’s laws, how the judge and precedence in that circuit reads “creed.”
Lately there’s obviously been a push for ‘private businesses don’t have to do business with anyone’. But the laws that de-segregated lunch counters (by statute or end result) made that not so much the case.
As for Klan rally cake hypothetical...
Hate speech IS illegal, and in some situations considered an ‘incitement to violence’ (in some states, every case). Use of a swastika or firey cross on a cake is generally considered hate speech except in a historical context. A business owner is usually encouraged by local associations to refuse to serve requests involving hate speech. But they are certainly entitled to refuse service in any case.
The problem is the same rules actually shouldn’t apply unilaterally here; a nazi’s/white supremacists rights are not being infringed upon by being refused service because it involved hate speech. A man’s rights are being violated if he is refused service, especially essential services, for his sexual orientation or gender identity.
Basically, those same people who, fairly illegally, don’t want to serve gays can (and should) very legally be refused (nonesesential) service for being prejudiced against gays. It’s a two way street.
You use this as a comparative case to the people who refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple; could you please cite a case in which there was an order for a cake with a swastika or firey cross? If there has been no such case, there is no precedent - or law - against hate speech with your evidence here. If this is the case, please provide a better example.
A known Klan Wizard walks into a black bakery to buy a birthday cake for his wife. Why can’t the baker refuse him?
An atheist wants a cake for a “Freedom from Religion” party with God crossed out on the cake....still has to bake it?
A prostitution business (where it’s legal) or a porn shop wants to celebrate 20th anniversary of teh busniess with a cake....has to bake it?
Where is all this illegal? Germany? In other nations in Europe?
Repugnant groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the KKK still exist and still have free speech rights.
ROTFLMAO!! Are you a troll? Care to define "Hate Speech"?
Those who engage in homosexual sex are not a separate species; there is no scientific basis for the claim that there are 'gay beings' among us that have been unjustly oppressed by society. The 'gay being' canard comes from the same place that global warming comes from -leftist propagandists.
Hate speech is not illegal in the U.S.; the Supreme Court held that even cross-burning is protected by the First Amendment. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
Basically, those same people who, fairly illegally, don’t want to serve gays can (and should) very legally be refused (nonesesential) service for being prejudiced against gays.
...please rewrite this sentence; your prose has completely obscured your point...