IF you are in business there are certain laws which will regulate and govern you. That was true before this law. Case law already exists where an unmarried couple wanted to rent a room together. The rentor declined on religious grounds. Courts made them rent to anyway.
People have a choice at that point. Those are matters of conscience. A contract was being negotiated and the baker was fine with baking a cake UNTIL they found out the couple was homosexual. This is not unlike being willing to sell a house to a person UNTIL you find out they are of a different race or religion.
Part of the hard part of living under a constitution that respects minority rights (and that does not mean what some people think it means), is that one ends up being unhappy sometimes. NAZIs had to be allowed to march in Skokie,Illinois.
IF our legislators are that concerned then they should craft a well written bit that would allow protection for all sides.
The only way a person can avoid government riles and regulations is to hide in the hills somewhere and hope they are never found
Case law already exists where an unmarried couple wanted to rent a room together. The rentor declined on religious grounds. Courts made them rent to anyway.
...whatever your strong point is, it’s clearly not drawing analogies...you cite an instance, without providing context, which found for a couple in need of the basic service of shelter...was it because they didn’t have the wherewithal to find or afford other such shelter? You don’t provide that...maybe there were no other options for them...
...having a cake baked is not in any way shape or form a basic human need...and ample opportunity existed for the lesbians to get the cake elsewhere...your analogy twists the concept of business, and its subtleties and nuances into a nonsensical one size fits all...putting a government in any and all instances in the position of final arbiter...true enough in communist regimes, but not here in the US...your logic is getting weaker as you continue to explain your position, and the lameness of your analogical proof only further cements the shallowness of your argument...
...you need to cite precedence where a government inserted itself into a business transaction regarding mundane services such as cake baking and established the principle that the vendor need be forced into servicing the buyer...and that the buyer actually won a litigation based on that principle...then your comments can stand...