First reaction here is that this is a stupid setup by the t*********r, this person has to know that this baker is opposed to baking any cakes for gays...

...so knowing this guy has a problem with this why on god's green earth would a gay person want to push this guy who doesn't like them or want to bake them a cake into doing so? Leave the bigot alone and find someone who wants your business already. So knowing this guy has a problem with gays is this going to surprise this person, do they have a reason to be all butt hurt over getting the expected result, which would be to refuse to make their cake?

So on the side of the baker, what is this guy's problem with using his head and using common sense and human nature against this t****y? The t**********e describes the cake he/she wants, the baker says with a dead straight face, "really, you want ME to bake you a cake, are you really really sure about that"? Yeah I'm sure, to which he responds with a wistful little, "okay, wh**ever".

This is major stupid wanting a guy who has a problem with gays to bake them a cake. They are looking for a legal settlement. The baker should bake a cake with extras, say flies, crickets, cockroaches, wh**ever.

No... a business cannot reject people at their own discretion, you can't reject b****s, Muslims...or gays, and doing so is at your own peril.

The bill of rights is not nearly as much about what the government can expect out of people as it is about the protections afforded to people (b****s, w****s, christians, muslims, gays). Christians do not get preference over gays.

Defining religious freedom, it is not absolute in the context of how the conservative religious right is trying to see it. Muslim beliefs mean everything that christian beliefs mean, christian beliefs have no more power in regard to laws as muslim ones do, we do not nor will we ever recognize sharia law, and religious ideology such as a******n and the hard conservative objection to it is as objectionable. Putting religious beliefs ahead of the constitution is objectionable. Religious freedom and rights does not mean that a county clerk such as Kim Davis has a right to deprive a gay couple of the legal right to get a marriage license. In support of Davis's religious right to believe wh**ever she wants she is free to quit and find another job that she is not required to issue marriage licenses she has a problem with.

Giving christians the religious rights they seem to think they have on the job, whether they own a business or are an employee opens the door to Muslim business owners walking all over the religious rights of their employees because they own the business. You can own a business and believe wh**ever you want, but you cannot jam your religious beliefs down your employees throats. You can allow employees to pray if that's what they want to do, but you can't tell them that they will pray to a god they don't believe in.

The constitution protects the right to believe what you want, but not at the expense of someone else's beliefs. Beliefs do not need to interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights to be "exercised". Beliefs are something everyone can have that nobody can interfere with, if your beliefs affect someone else you are wrong

I have never understood why, after asking for their date, the baker didn't simply look through his calendar quickly and declare that he was all booked up for that time. I also wondered why, when told "no" by the baker, the t*********rs didn't simply go to another bakery. Maybe there simply was a lot of arrogance on both sides. I, myself, have trouble understanding deliberately turning away business when that selling your product is your only purpose for being there. And, in my opinion, dealing with customers wanting to purchase your product, is no place for exhibiting your personal views about anything. Was the baker, as well as the customer, determined to make his point, mo matter what?

First reaction here is that this is a stupid setup by the t*********r, this person has to know that this baker is opposed to baking any cakes for gays...

...so knowing this guy has a problem with this why on god's green earth would a gay person want to push this guy who doesn't like them or want to bake them a cake into doing so? Leave the bigot alone and find someone who wants your business already. So knowing this guy has a problem with gays is this going to surprise this person, do they have a reason to be all butt hurt over getting the expected result, which would be to refuse to make their cake?

So on the side of the baker, what is this guy's problem with using his head and using common sense and human nature against this t****y? The t**********e describes the cake he/she wants, the baker says with a dead straight face, "really, you want ME to bake you a cake, are you really really sure about that"? Yeah I'm sure, to which he responds with a wistful little, "okay, wh**ever".

This is major stupid wanting a guy who has a problem with gays to bake them a cake. They are looking for a legal settlement. The baker should bake a cake with extras, say flies, crickets, cockroaches, wh**ever.

Many years ago, on a board far away, I tried to explain to the Pollyannas there that a single individual has easily enough power to make life miserable for an entire community. They just couldn't seem to get it. Without going into the whole demonstration once again, let me just say that too many rules makes the nasty individual's job that much easier. The above noted situation is a case in point.

A business should be allowed to select and reject clientele at its own discretion... and its own peril. The Bill of Rights limits what the government can demand of the citizenry. Religious freedom is absolute. The very concept of a human rights commission is a violation of the Constitutional guarantees of governmental non-interference embodied in the Constitution.

No... a business cannot reject people at their own discretion, you can't reject b****s, Muslims...or gays, and doing so is at your own peril.

The bill of rights is not nearly as much about what the government can expect out of people as it is about the protections afforded to people (b****s, w****s, christians, muslims, gays). Christians do not get preference over gays.

Defining religious freedom, it is not absolute in the context of how the conservative religious right is trying to see it. Muslim beliefs mean everything that christian beliefs mean, christian beliefs have no more power in regard to laws as muslim ones do, we do not nor will we ever recognize sharia law, and religious ideology such as a******n and the hard conservative objection to it is as objectionable. Putting religious beliefs ahead of the constitution is objectionable. Religious freedom and rights does not mean that a county clerk such as Kim Davis has a right to deprive a gay couple of the legal right to get a marriage license. In support of Davis's religious right to believe wh**ever she wants she is free to quit and find another job that she is not required to issue marriage licenses she has a problem with.

Giving christians the religious rights they seem to think they have on the job, whether they own a business or are an employee opens the door to Muslim business owners walking all over the religious rights of their employees because they own the business. You can own a business and believe wh**ever you want, but you cannot jam your religious beliefs down your employees throats. You can allow employees to pray if that's what they want to do, but you can't tell them that they will pray to a god they don't believe in.

The constitution protects the right to believe what you want, but not at the expense of someone else's beliefs. Beliefs do not need to interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights to be "exercised". Beliefs are something everyone can have that nobody can interfere with, if your beliefs affect someone else you are wrong