Other than the legislation the activist conservative judges are trying to push through, of course. The Constitution nowhere says that people are allowed to discriminate against homosexuals or trangendered folks (or women or blacks, for that matter), but theyr’e going to claim that it does.
Per his own words in today’s USAToday oped, Jack Phillips states
So if he hasn’t made the same cake before for a cis-gendered individual this may not be quite the test case the complaining attorney Autumn Scardina was hoping for. And it may have the opposite effect. Look ahead for a possible Masterpiece Cakeshop v2.0 case at the high court. But with Kennedy retired and a possible Kavanaugh replacement the court’s conservative majority might decide to get to the meat of the argument and rule in a way that Scardina may regret.
Justice Alito, during oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v1.0, asked a question that focused on what LHoD’s example illustrates. In short, context matters and a baker likely would not be required to sell two physically identical cakes if the use of one would be to express an idea the baker objects to.
In Alito’s example he used the phrase “November 9, the best day in history” which might celebrate a wedding anniversary or the horrors of Kristalnacht. Alito clearly telegraphed that a baker should be able to choose to produce such a cake for an anniversary but not for a neo-Nazi celebrating Kristalnacht.
And before anyone chimes that neo-Nazis are not a protected class, the federal courts have upheld Christian Identity white nationalist types of churches as a religion.
Because that was the test that this particular baker already failed. In the original case, they hadn’t even gotten to any design details when the baker flatly refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.
It’s a bit of an oddball discrimination – he’s discriminating against certain acts by LGBT people – wedding, transition. But, he would bake a cake (he says) for their birthday. I don’t know if that’s actually ever been tested with him.
I’ll answer your diversionary question. (Have you any non-diversionary questions?)
I use the phrase “hang a shingle” because it’s an entirely appropriate term to use. Simple as that.
Especially since one of the several bullshit counterarguments is “The marginalized people can just go to a baker that isn’t a bigot, so there’s no problem.” Tell me, dear defender of bigotry, how are the marginalized people supposed to do that if it’s not clear which shops are manned by bigots? Do they go from door to door, wasting time trying to discover which business owners put business before bigotry and hatred? Exposing themselves unnecessarily to insult (at best)?
The answer, of course, is that if the bakers don’t hang a literal shingle (and there are legitimate reasons not to - to fool decent people of the non-marginalized type into thinking that they’re not doing business with a bigot, for example) then somebody else will do it for them.
Oh sure there have. Not the cake specifically but sodomy laws, bathroom laws, same-sex marriage bans and so on. Yes the courts have overturned a lot of those but clearly many states will pass discriminatory laws against LGBTQ people given the chance.
More to the point the baker is just trying an end run around previous decisions by trying to get the court to allow discrimination based on free speech or religious freedom. Once that door is opened all manner of shenanigans allowing discrimination become possible.
I showed you a book people needed to be able to travel in parts of the US because so many services were unavailable to them due to discrimination. It was published for 30 years. I’d call that pervasive.
If someone is denied equal protection of the laws or are discriminated against why not? Too bad if it bothers you that these uppity people won’t just know their place and shut-up.
The Constitution isn’t a document that “allows“ people to do anything. The Constitution is a document that grants the current government powers to do some things.
What’s your point? That discrimination is okay? That the constitution successfully gave the current government the power to criminalize it? That people who aren’t part of the current government can do everything, up to and especially including killing minorities and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti?
The only people that care about this case are the LBGQ activists and whoever they can manage to get riled up over it. Like those over-analyzing it here.
It’s a very small, vocal minority who really give more than 2 shits about it. Guy won’t bake cakes for gays. Big flying fucking deal.
Given that you are doubtlessly going to define anybody who supports the antibigotry position a LBGQ activist, this is both axiomatically true and completely meaningless.
Got stats? Poll? Something other than your baldface dismissal?
True, but one more group of people that may care, and that is humans that have any sort of empathy for other humans.
It is not entirely clear whether or not those with short sighted selfish motives have taken the majority, it is entirely possible that it is only the minority that gives two shits about other people, but I try to be more optimistic than that.
Civil rights laws have been well codified for quite some time. Bigots will always be bigots. No amount of legislation or public opinion will ever change that. If you can’t wait for them to die off, you can just go on enjoying the frustration of trying to change their minds.
Then there’s the people who are even more riled up about how people shouldn’t get so riled up about this. That’s what gets me riled up.
Countering your opinion doesn’t take anywhere near that much consideration.
Glad to help! 
I’m really only mildly indignant towards the stupid waste of resources spent batting this one back and forth.
The baker says that he’s never made a cake like that before. How much do you want to bet that there was a previous customer who did, in fact, order that exact cake, complete with video of them buying it and cutting it?
You mean failing to counter my opinion. It only counters my opinion if you actually bring some kind of counterargument, other than your own randomly shouted opinion.
I mean, I get it. You’re wrong. You’re in the wrong. You’re arguing that bigots should be able to break the law in the way they conduct their business. That’s pretty damned wrong.
The not-stupid argument in favor of the bigots is to lean on the first amendment - “I’m an asshole and I have a constitutional right to be an asshole”. Problem is that the circumstances of these events don’t make that argument easy. It’s all hard and stuff and not too convincing.
So instead you’re taking the “this is not a problem, black people LOVED slavery and practically nobody complained!”-style of argument, arguing that all these protests and legal suits are nothing to see here. Don’t think about it too hard -look, over there, a squirrel!
The problem with that approach, of course, is that it’s unsupportable bullshit unless you can actually demonstrate that the minority in this case so to small as to merit being crushed. Which you haven’t done. AFTER you do that, then we can discuss whether people who aren’t in the majority should be heinously mistreated, not before.
No that’s not what happened, not what I’m saying and not anywhere near the issue here. Bye. 
Have a nice evening. (Your prior posts haven’t gone anywhere, though.)
Absolutely fucking wrong.
I am a heterosexual middle aged white male with an above average income.
I absolutely care and want ALL people to be treated equally - and that includes when going shopping at a public store.
There’s a couple of quotes that sum it up quite nicely -
a) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
b) Do to others as you would have them do to you.
It’s funny how bible thumping bigots so easily forget the most basic of things .
Mmmm, now I’m really craving cake . . .
I’m a big 'ol gay girl and am kinda “meh” on this. Yeah, CakeMan is a bigoted shithead and needs to follow the law; OTOH, I think there are more important battles to give our time, money and attention to.