seems like this verdict had more to do with the civil rights commission fucking up more than the actual defense of discrimination/religious rights, no?

either way this case is interesting albeit incredibly specific. nothing here looks like it could set precedent for a grocery store banning black people or a dog breeder refusing to allow gays to adopt - but also who the hell knows anything anymore

Narrow-viewed or not, they sincerely hold to their interpretation of Christianity. They can choose to serve or not serve anyone they want to. It's their right and they shouldn't have been made a political target by the SJW "woe is me" fascists.

You can make the argument that its wrong or whatever, but be aware that at some point your own beliefs could be squashed for some arbitrary reason if the courts had decided to rule in favor of the couple. It sets a precedent for lawsuits that could unfairly target all kinds of businesses in a culture that's already trigger happy with litigation.

If I'm using my beliefs as a justification to discriminate, I'd hope that they'd be quashed. Woe is who?

If I walk into a BBQ place run by Muslims and they won't serve me pulled pork when the same franchise in other places has pulled pork on the menu, should I sue them because they believe pork is unclean?

Not sure what that has to do with this case since the gay couple in question asked for a cake that the baker was already offering...

You'd be able to sue the Muslims if you went into their establishment for some halalBQ and they refused service on suspicion of you liking pork.

If anyone really cares to dig into this here’s the actual ruling

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-111_j4el.pdf

If I read that I'm gonna want a cake.

If I go to a sushi restaurant and I wear sneakers and the owners sushi their sushi can I sushi sushi?

This is what his cakes usually look like

http://masterpiececakes.com/wp/wp-co...kes_HPQuad.jpg

Did they ask him to put dicks on it?

Maybe they just asked for less vagina symbolism on theirs.