[Jamie89]

I'm more than tolerant of someone else's beliefs. But if somebody is running a business that conflicts with their beliefs then that is their problem, not mine or anybody else's. What they have to do, like anybody running a business, is figure out a way of solving that problem or compromising. Instead, their solution was to offload the problem onto the public so they didn't have to deal with it themselves. For want of a better expression they are having their cake and eating it.

From the publics point of view its very simple. See a service is advertised, request that service, get refused service on the grounds of sexuality. Would that be acceptable if we were talking about race? Sex? Of course it wouldn't (and that is just as valid a point as 'what if it were an Islamic bakers'). Anybody serving the public can serve someone whilst retaining their feelings of prejudice against them, nobody's actually being asked to change their beliefs.

It doesn't have to be a case of 'who's rights are more important' both sides deserve their rights to be respected but there is only one side that had no choice in this situation occurring and that's the gay couple. There was no way for them to know they would be refused service or for it to happen because of their sexuality. The bakery did know this would happen. Based on the service they provide and the beliefs they hold they knew fine well this would happen and did nothing to prevent it/didn't care, the onus was on them. They aren't being discriminated against by somebody requesting the service that they advertise. But they are discriminating against others by refusing that service. The gay couple aren't unreasonable in expecting to receive the advertised service, the bakers are unreasonable to expect that customers will somehow know they are going to be refused service, and so not request the service in the first place. So the 'it works both ways' thing, it's not exactly equal looking at it both ways, there's quite a big difference. In terms of one side's reasonable expectations of what service they will receive, those expectations are managed entirely by the other side. For it to be twisted into 'the gay couple are being prejudiced or intolerant towards christians', or 'so gay rights are more important than religious rights?'.. I can't fathom any of that at all as it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted by TomC

It's 'petty' or worse to go through course bc you didn't want to make a cake though

This is true as well, why are accusations of pettiness being directed towards the gay couple? They didn't take this to the supreme Court, the bakery did. And this obviously factors in quite heavily to that decision...

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court