Can anyone in the know explain what this court opinion means in its outworking?
Can Phillips refuse to serve these two sodomites a wedding cake?
Can Phillips refuse to sell ANY wedding cake to sodomites from now on?
Is Phillips just let off the hook for this one “offense?”
I’m not in the know but I think some of this may have turned on the concern for artists to not be compelled to make reputation-damaging “art” just because the client orders them to do so.
He doesn’t have to bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding.
It is implied the case would’ve gone against him had he denied the sale of any cake.
The issue not addressed is if he had refused to make a new, plain cake, for a gay couple, as opposed to one already on the shelf.
I would assume that the real import is that one cannot be forced to create a message one disagrees with...