Baker must make gay cakes

[Zombie_Pundit]

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms? It was always the other way around. The First Amendment to the constitution is still valid.

So can business claim religious beliefs and discriminate against whomever they want?


Are there other laws of general applicability that one should just be able to claim a religious belief and then be exempt from the law?



>>>>

Not serving someone because he is gay is one thing, however forcing me to participate in a event that goes against my faith is another. I would gladly serve a gay customer, however when they ask me to bake a gay wedding cake, or even attend a gay wedding ceremony to serve the cake, it goes against my beliefs and I should not be forced by law to renounce my faith. I would go to jail first.

I'm not sure how you are classifying any fancy cake as gay or not gay. No one has provided a definition of "gay cake". If you are going to refuse to bake "gay cake" you will need to provide some definition. You may not be required to bake "gay cake" if "gay cake" has some meaning pertaining to the actual shape or content of the cake.
Example: If you choose to label carrot cake as "gay cake", well, you actually have no legal requirement to make a carrot cake and you are free to call carrot cake "gay". That is to say if someone came into your store and said "I'd like a carrot cake" you could reply "we don't make carrot cakes here". However, if you instead replied "We don't make no damn dirty gay cakes!" because you hold "carrot" and "gay" to be synonymous then you might have to explain yourself before some authority. I doubt that authority would know you thought of carrot cake as "gay" and the authority may not accept your explanation and instead cite animus on your part.

No one can force you to put some objectionable ingredient you don't carry into a cake. But generally you can't refuse service to a person who will enjoy a cake you have baked because you dislike "their kind".
Example: If you ran a gluten-free bakery, no one could force you to use gluten. But you can't refuse service because a gay person might enjoy eating one of your gluten-free cakes.

If it is your intention to label the cake "gay" because ostensibly gay people are going to eat that cake then you are in violation of public accommodation laws regardless of how you choose to label the cake. This is because the cake has not actually changed state. The thing to which you object is that gay people might enjoy it. Do you understand that difference?

Lastly, being a baker does not imply being a caterer. There are plenty of bakers who bake cakes and don't slice up the cake at an event afterward. If in addition to baked goods you offer catering services and those catering services are listed in your state as public accommodation, then you may be in violation of public accommodation when you chase a same-sex couple out of your store.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It certainly is a SINGULAR "faith", yes.

It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.

The Court noted the claims of Phillips' faith are open to question, at best.

Really That judge is an ignoramus.

Do you really want me to quote and paste every Bible passage that condemns homosexuality?

Don't make me stop this car....

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

Baker Bigot has stated he will appeal; though as you noted, the law remains the same.

lol, taking a moral stand is bigotry to liberals now if it doesn't match their talking points memos, roflmao.

 

[JimBowie1958]

.

I see some here are still pretending this is about public accommodations.

This is about a homosexual couple who could have chosen to work with someone who wanted to work with them, but instead chose to punish this guy for not conforming to their worldview.

Public accommodation laws never had to enter into it.

.

and here you are still pretending it isn't about rightwing bigotry couched as religious belief

Jesus and His Apostles must be bigots too then, and I will happily be a bigot right along with them, if you are o determined to twist that word It will lose its sting and become useless.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If God created the world as we know it, God created gay humans also. How can anyone be so enraged by variances in humans that neither impact, nor harm them?

God created order in the universe and not disorder.

Queer sex is disordered.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If God created the world as we know it, God created gay humans also. How can anyone be so enraged by variances in humans that neither impact, nor harm them?

Just as God created murderers, child molesters, sadists, the entire gamut of human foolishness and cruelty. No. God created human beings. After that, they choose their own behavior.

Gays can choose to be gay, or not, as they wish. When their choices impact the choices and decisions of another person, then it becomes harmful.

I dissent. Gay humans made no choice.

Yes, they most certainly do.

History shows gay humans in every known society. Some remained celibate, but were gay from birth.

And there are murderers, child molesters and serial killers in every society too.

Which doesn't mean any of it is either morally good nor natural nor advisable to be left alone.

 

[Jughead]

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms?

They shouldn’t, and they don’t; one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the rights enshrined in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

You and most others on the right are apparently determined to remain willfully ignorant concerning this simple, fundamental fact of Constitutional law.

The Employment Division Court, whose decision was unanimous and authored by Justice Scalia, explains in a clear, logical, wise, and reasonable manner why religion cannot be used as justification to violate proper, appropriate, and Constitutional measures – such as public accommodations laws.

So you then believe that it's acceptable for Mr. Phillips to have to choose between renouncing his faith or going to jail?

 

[Jughead]

So can business claim religious beliefs and discriminate against whomever they want?


Are there other laws of general applicability that one should just be able to claim a religious belief and then be exempt from the law?



>>>>

Not serving someone because he is gay is one thing, however forcing me to participate in a event that goes against my faith is another. I would gladly serve a gay customer, however when they ask me to bake a gay wedding cake, or even attend a gay wedding ceremony to serve the cake, it goes against my beliefs and I should not be forced by law to renounce my faith. I would go to jail first.

I'm not sure how you are classifying any fancy cake as gay or not gay. No one has provided a definition of "gay cake". If you are going to refuse to bake "gay cake" you will need to provide some definition. You may not be required to bake "gay cake" if "gay cake" has some meaning pertaining to the actual shape or content of the cake.
Example: If you choose to label carrot cake as "gay cake", well, you actually have no legal requirement to make a carrot cake and you are free to call carrot cake "gay". That is to say if someone came into your store and said "I'd like a carrot cake" you could reply "we don't make carrot cakes here". However, if you instead replied "We don't make no damn dirty gay cakes!" because you hold "carrot" and "gay" to be synonymous then you might have to explain yourself before some authority. I doubt that authority would know you thought of carrot cake as "gay" and the authority may not accept your explanation and instead cite animus on your part.

No one can force you to put some objectionable ingredient you don't carry into a cake. But generally you can't refuse service to a person who will enjoy a cake you have baked because you dislike "their kind".
Example: If you ran a gluten-free bakery, no one could force you to use gluten. But you can't refuse service because a gay person might enjoy eating one of your gluten-free cakes.

If it is your intention to label the cake "gay" because ostensibly gay people are going to eat that cake then you are in violation of public accommodation laws regardless of how you choose to label the cake. This is because the cake has not actually changed state. The thing to which you object is that gay people might enjoy it. Do you understand that difference?

Lastly, being a baker does not imply being a caterer. There are plenty of bakers who bake cakes and don't slice up the cake at an event afterward. If in addition to baked goods you offer catering services and those catering services are listed in your state as public accommodation, then you may be in violation of public accommodation when you chase a same-sex couple out of your store.

Mr. Phillips was told that the cake would be used for a gay wedding ceremony. He had replied to the two fellows that he would not prepare any cake for any gay wedding ceremony, as he would be going against his religious beliefs. He does not want to abandon his faith. So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail. He is a man of faith, thus I'll bet that he will be going to jail in order to keep practicing his faith. He has already stated in the past that he is ready to go to jail.

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I see some here are still pretending this is about public accommodations.

This is about a homosexual couple who could have chosen to work with someone who wanted to work with them, but instead chose to punish this guy for not conforming to their worldview.

Public accommodation laws never had to enter into it.

.

and here you are still pretending it isn't about rightwing bigotry couched as religious belief

Since you don't deny my point (instead choosing to go with deflection), we can now agree that this is about control. The shop owner is not trying to force the gay couple to do anything, he just doesn't want to participate in it.

But they can't say the same, can they? No, of course not, and that's my point.

They stumbled on to an opportunity to shove their beliefs down this guy's throat and they ran with it. Make an example out of him, intimidate others from doing it in the future.

They could have told him to piss off, but that's just not enough for you PC Police. You have to issue "consequences", you have to force conformity.

To address your attempt at deflection: I'll leave the religious stuff to you and the right wingers, I'm a comfy agnostic and I don't care whether those two folks get married or not.

.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Since you don't deny my point (instead choosing to go with deflection), we can now agree that this is about control. The shop owner is not trying to force the gay couple to do anything, he just doesn't want to participate in it.

But they can't say the same, can they? No, of course not, and that's my point.

They stumbled on to an opportunity to shove their beliefs down this guy's throat and they ran with it. Make an example out of him, intimidate others from doing it in the future.

They could have told him to piss off, but that's just not enough for you PC Police. You have to issue "consequences", you have to force conformity.

To address your attempt at deflection: I'll leave the religious stuff to you and the right wingers, I'm a comfy agnostic and I don't care whether those two folks get married or not.

.

again, guy, we had this conversation 50 years ago over lunch counters in the South.

If you are offering a service and they have money to pay for it, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

 

[Mac1958]

[
Since you don't deny my point (instead choosing to go with deflection), we can now agree that this is about control. The shop owner is not trying to force the gay couple to do anything, he just doesn't want to participate in it.

But they can't say the same, can they? No, of course not, and that's my point.

They stumbled on to an opportunity to shove their beliefs down this guy's throat and they ran with it. Make an example out of him, intimidate others from doing it in the future.

They could have told him to piss off, but that's just not enough for you PC Police. You have to issue "consequences", you have to force conformity.

To address your attempt at deflection: I'll leave the religious stuff to you and the right wingers, I'm a comfy agnostic and I don't care whether those two folks get married or not.

.

again, guy, we had this conversation 50 years ago over lunch counters in the South.

If you are offering a service and they have money to pay for it, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

No, it isn't the end of the discussion, as much as you would like it to be.

You offer to buy something, I choose not to sell it to you.

You can either go to someone else, or you can force me to sell it to you.

Your choice. And you choose to exact "consequences", to force conformity.

Because that's what you do. You've become very good at it, congratulations.

.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Since you don't deny my point (instead choosing to go with deflection), we can now agree that this is about control. The shop owner is not trying to force the gay couple to do anything, he just doesn't want to participate in it.

But they can't say the same, can they? No, of course not, and that's my point.

They stumbled on to an opportunity to shove their beliefs down this guy's throat and they ran with it. Make an example out of him, intimidate others from doing it in the future.

They could have told him to piss off, but that's just not enough for you PC Police. You have to issue "consequences", you have to force conformity.

To address your attempt at deflection: I'll leave the religious stuff to you and the right wingers, I'm a comfy agnostic and I don't care whether those two folks get married or not.

.

again, guy, we had this conversation 50 years ago over lunch counters in the South.

If you are offering a service and they have money to pay for it, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

No, it isn't the end of the discussion, as much as you would like it to be.

You offer to buy something, I choose not to sell it to you.

You can either go to someone else, or you can force me to sell it to you.

Your choice. And you choose to exact "consequences", to force conformity.

Because that's what you do. You've become very good at it, congratulations.

.

Yes, when you screw me over, I will screw you back.

I'm good like that.

Was a time I'd have been right with you. Until I realized that business owners deserve no sympathy. Especially ones who are religious assholes.

Again, I've see people who were fired for being gay. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you don't like it.

Too. Fucking. Bad.

 

[Mac1958]

Too. Fucking. Bad.

And there it is, thanks.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Too. Fucking. Bad.

And there it is, thanks.

.

Yeah, guy, I'm not going in to hysterics like you are that some religious bigots have to serve gay customers.

Just like I'm not going into hysterics because racial bigots have to serve black customers.

 

[Seawytch]

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms?

They shouldn’t, and they don’t; one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the rights enshrined in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

You and most others on the right are apparently determined to remain willfully ignorant concerning this simple, fundamental fact of Constitutional law.

The Employment Division Court, whose decision was unanimous and authored by Justice Scalia, explains in a clear, logical, wise, and reasonable manner why religion cannot be used as justification to violate proper, appropriate, and Constitutional measures – such as public accommodations laws.

So you then believe that it's acceptable for Mr. Phillips to have to choose between renouncing his faith or going to jail?

Since nobody is making him "renounce his faith", your question in moot...and hyperbolic.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Not serving someone because he is gay is one thing, however forcing me to participate in a event that goes against my faith is another. I would gladly serve a gay customer, however when they ask me to bake a gay wedding cake, or even attend a gay wedding ceremony to serve the cake, it goes against my beliefs and I should not be forced by law to renounce my faith. I would go to jail first.

I'm not sure how you are classifying any fancy cake as gay or not gay. No one has provided a definition of "gay cake". If you are going to refuse to bake "gay cake" you will need to provide some definition. You may not be required to bake "gay cake" if "gay cake" has some meaning pertaining to the actual shape or content of the cake.
Example: If you choose to label carrot cake as "gay cake", well, you actually have no legal requirement to make a carrot cake and you are free to call carrot cake "gay". That is to say if someone came into your store and said "I'd like a carrot cake" you could reply "we don't make carrot cakes here". However, if you instead replied "We don't make no damn dirty gay cakes!" because you hold "carrot" and "gay" to be synonymous then you might have to explain yourself before some authority. I doubt that authority would know you thought of carrot cake as "gay" and the authority may not accept your explanation and instead cite animus on your part.

No one can force you to put some objectionable ingredient you don't carry into a cake. But generally you can't refuse service to a person who will enjoy a cake you have baked because you dislike "their kind".
Example: If you ran a gluten-free bakery, no one could force you to use gluten. But you can't refuse service because a gay person might enjoy eating one of your gluten-free cakes.

If it is your intention to label the cake "gay" because ostensibly gay people are going to eat that cake then you are in violation of public accommodation laws regardless of how you choose to label the cake. This is because the cake has not actually changed state. The thing to which you object is that gay people might enjoy it. Do you understand that difference?

Lastly, being a baker does not imply being a caterer. There are plenty of bakers who bake cakes and don't slice up the cake at an event afterward. If in addition to baked goods you offer catering services and those catering services are listed in your state as public accommodation, then you may be in violation of public accommodation when you chase a same-sex couple out of your store.

Mr. Phillips was told that the cake would be used for a gay wedding ceremony. He had replied to the two fellows that he would not prepare any cake for any gay wedding ceremony, as he would be going against his religious beliefs. He does not want to abandon his faith. So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail. He is a man of faith, thus I'll bet that he will be going to jail in order to keep practicing his faith. He has already stated in the past that he is ready to go to jail.

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not sure how you are classifying any fancy cake as gay or not gay. No one has provided a definition of "gay cake". If you are going to refuse to bake "gay cake" you will need to provide some definition. You may not be required to bake "gay cake" if "gay cake" has some meaning pertaining to the actual shape or content of the cake.
Example: If you choose to label carrot cake as "gay cake", well, you actually have no legal requirement to make a carrot cake and you are free to call carrot cake "gay". That is to say if someone came into your store and said "I'd like a carrot cake" you could reply "we don't make carrot cakes here". However, if you instead replied "We don't make no damn dirty gay cakes!" because you hold "carrot" and "gay" to be synonymous then you might have to explain yourself before some authority. I doubt that authority would know you thought of carrot cake as "gay" and the authority may not accept your explanation and instead cite animus on your part.

No one can force you to put some objectionable ingredient you don't carry into a cake. But generally you can't refuse service to a person who will enjoy a cake you have baked because you dislike "their kind".
Example: If you ran a gluten-free bakery, no one could force you to use gluten. But you can't refuse service because a gay person might enjoy eating one of your gluten-free cakes.

If it is your intention to label the cake "gay" because ostensibly gay people are going to eat that cake then you are in violation of public accommodation laws regardless of how you choose to label the cake. This is because the cake has not actually changed state. The thing to which you object is that gay people might enjoy it. Do you understand that difference?

Lastly, being a baker does not imply being a caterer. There are plenty of bakers who bake cakes and don't slice up the cake at an event afterward. If in addition to baked goods you offer catering services and those catering services are listed in your state as public accommodation, then you may be in violation of public accommodation when you chase a same-sex couple out of your store.

Mr. Phillips was told that the cake would be used for a gay wedding ceremony. He had replied to the two fellows that he would not prepare any cake for any gay wedding ceremony, as he would be going against his religious beliefs. He does not want to abandon his faith. So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail. He is a man of faith, thus I'll bet that he will be going to jail in order to keep practicing his faith. He has already stated in the past that he is ready to go to jail.

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

Your forgot the most simple solution:

Mr. Phillips continues to operate his bakery in the present location but chooses to not provide wedding cakes are part of his business model.​

Since the business does not offer wedding cakes, Mr. Phillips would not be required to supply them to anyone.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Mr. Phillips was told that the cake would be used for a gay wedding ceremony. He had replied to the two fellows that he would not prepare any cake for any gay wedding ceremony, as he would be going against his religious beliefs. He does not want to abandon his faith. So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail. He is a man of faith, thus I'll bet that he will be going to jail in order to keep practicing his faith. He has already stated in the past that he is ready to go to jail.

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

Your forgot the most simple solution:

Mr. Phillips continues to operate his bakery in the present location but chooses to not provide wedding cakes are part of his business model.​

Since the business does not offer wedding cakes, Mr. Phillips would not be required to supply them to anyone.



>>>>

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

True, the whole "abandon his faith or go to jail" meme is false. There are perfectly legal options where neither would happen.


On top of that "Jail" isn't even in the offing:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The relief provided by this section is an alternative to that authorized by section 24-34-306 (9), and a person who seeks redress under this section is not permitted to seek relief from the commission.​

A fine (commission ruling) or pay damages (if it goes to court).

The whole "go to jail" thing is not in the law.




>>>>

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not sure how you are classifying any fancy cake as gay or not gay. No one has provided a definition of "gay cake". If you are going to refuse to bake "gay cake" you will need to provide some definition. You may not be required to bake "gay cake" if "gay cake" has some meaning pertaining to the actual shape or content of the cake.
Example: If you choose to label carrot cake as "gay cake", well, you actually have no legal requirement to make a carrot cake and you are free to call carrot cake "gay". That is to say if someone came into your store and said "I'd like a carrot cake" you could reply "we don't make carrot cakes here". However, if you instead replied "We don't make no damn dirty gay cakes!" because you hold "carrot" and "gay" to be synonymous then you might have to explain yourself before some authority. I doubt that authority would know you thought of carrot cake as "gay" and the authority may not accept your explanation and instead cite animus on your part.

No one can force you to put some objectionable ingredient you don't carry into a cake. But generally you can't refuse service to a person who will enjoy a cake you have baked because you dislike "their kind".
Example: If you ran a gluten-free bakery, no one could force you to use gluten. But you can't refuse service because a gay person might enjoy eating one of your gluten-free cakes.

If it is your intention to label the cake "gay" because ostensibly gay people are going to eat that cake then you are in violation of public accommodation laws regardless of how you choose to label the cake. This is because the cake has not actually changed state. The thing to which you object is that gay people might enjoy it. Do you understand that difference?

Lastly, being a baker does not imply being a caterer. There are plenty of bakers who bake cakes and don't slice up the cake at an event afterward. If in addition to baked goods you offer catering services and those catering services are listed in your state as public accommodation, then you may be in violation of public accommodation when you chase a same-sex couple out of your store.

Mr. Phillips was told that the cake would be used for a gay wedding ceremony. He had replied to the two fellows that he would not prepare any cake for any gay wedding ceremony, as he would be going against his religious beliefs. He does not want to abandon his faith. So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail. He is a man of faith, thus I'll bet that he will be going to jail in order to keep practicing his faith. He has already stated in the past that he is ready to go to jail.

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.​

Yeah, and God loved the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, too.

Hell I can love like that.

Changing careers.

Why should he have to change careers to accommodate perverts?

Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Till the Queer Nazis get laws changed there as well. Why should this man have to move to flee the intolerance of queer Nazis?

Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.

This is going to happen a whole lot more than you think.

Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.

And it will count for him like treasures in Heaven. Good for him if he does.

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

Wow, he openly opposes the militant queer agenda and he is allowed to remain outside of jail and in business too? Well how could you beat that? roflmao

You morons are on the losing side of morality. No nation tolerates openly militant queers and lasts for very long at all. This shit will be over within 50 years one way or the other.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob.

It most fucking certainly is, shit-for-brains.

To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

And you look like a jack ass, you stupid shit.