In other words ...
These silly extensions of "civil rights" laws to homosexuals are on shaky legal ground simply because the owner of a business establishment has no way of knowing the sexual orientation of the customers he's dealing with. The same guy who calls himself gay on Monday can come back and be a heterosexual on Wednesday.
Yes, but asking for the cake to be made out to Fred and Doug would be a hint. :)
I’ve been saying this on FR for a while. The baker is not discriminating against a person but an event. He will serve any person. He will sell cakes already made to anyone and will gladly make a birthday (or whatever) cake for anyone. Being FORCED into a contract to provide something for an EVENT to which you have a conscientious objection to is nothing but tyranny. The government has no right to tell you whom you must enter contracts with.
The case is not discrimination against any person. The cakemaker has been required to create a work that personally offends him. His issue is with the cake, not the customer. He is perfectly happy to serve the customer. He retains personal control over the objects he creates and chooses not to create an object that celebrates what he considers evil.
Or to put it more bluntly, the extension of “civil rights” to cover people who simply have mental illnesses or choose to engage in some form of deviant behavior is both ludicrous and untenable.