> I think these bakers suck, but I do agree with the Supreme Court. A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they choose.

This was not the conclusion of the SCOTUS case.

It pushed the case back down to the State on procedural consideration.

We also have a bunch of reasons (protected classes) that a company cannot refuse to do business. Colorado specifically includes sexual orientation in their definition of protected classes.

>We also have a bunch of reasons (protected classes) that a company cannot refuse to do business. Colorado specifically includes sexual orientation in their definition of protected classes.

I don't think this is relevant to this specific case. The baker didn't refuse to do business with the gay couple. He was happy to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake.

He refused to sell them a personalized cake, which is considered a form of expression. The government cannot compel you to express yourself a certain way if it goes against your religious beliefs.

But that was not determined by this SCOTUS case and remains an open question to the best of my knowledge.

> He was happy to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake.

If you're talking about the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker, he didn't say that until the lawsuit was in-progress. At the time that the couple went in, he refused to serve them without discussing what they wanted.

Colorado does indeed have anti-discrimination laws to protect gay people which the baker was in clear violation of. The Supreme Court made a narrow ruling on a procedural matter.

> A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they choose.

So you're fine with "whites only" signs in shops?

Hope that doesn't sound too extreme but while I understand where you're coming from I think it's important to acknowledge where the rhetoric about not distinguishing your customers based on their personal characteristics comes from.

It seems a little circular to say that your argument is based on what is legal, when the discussion is about what should be legal.

Anyways I think your point is mainly that there is a line between what is required of a business and what constitutes a right to self-determination / self-expression. Where to draw that line is certainly not obvious and we understand new things about it as society progresses. So in that sense I do understand your point of view, and I happen to agree that certain decisions regarding what work they take should be allowed by a business, but I hope the point has been made that you have to be careful what you wish for when stating absolutes like "for whatever reason they choose."

For the record, almost of all of the baking cases in the courts, including the famous Colorado baker case, are in states that have anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people. These cases are challenging the laws saying that it's the religious right to discriminate against LGBT people.

> I think these bakers suck, but I do agree with the Supreme Court. A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they choose.

That's not what the Supreme Court found; it has not invalidated public accommodation anti-discrimination law in general, nor even the specific law the State relied on in the case. It did rule that the specific procedural history of the case indicated that State officials acted with specific targeted religious animus in the case, invalidating the state enforcement action even if the law was Constitutional and the enforcement factually warranted under it otherwise.

What about refusing to serve black people ? This was literally the premise of civil rights.

30, if not 3 years ago, this wouldn't even be a question. If somebody argues that the refusal is based on religious grounds, it seems like it would be a relevant test case in US politics.

Refusing to serve black people is illegal discrimination. It sucks that sexual orientation isn't a protected class in all states, but the bakers are legally clear here.

And the “but for” argument should have clearly applied here. They would not be denied a cake but for the gender (protected class) of who they were marrying. This was a clear case of judicial reinterpretation to meet an agenda.

Doesn't Colorado explicitly ban discrimination against gay people?

OK, but are they a private business? Are they a small reservation only shop, preferably not located on commercially zoned land?

Hah, ninja'd. We wrote the same comment, except mine's longer.