“The Equality Act would force you to ‘bake that cake.’ Or press you into performing a medical procedure that you think is immoral or inappropriate for the patient. And that’s a problem…”

Should “deeply held” religious beliefs trump legal protections against discrimination? Suzanne, you are saying that if someone has a prejudice against homosexuals that they can plausibly trace to the teachings of a religion, they should be able to exercise that prejudice and exclude the homosexual person from being served at a business, correct? Does this only apply to homosexuality or does it apply to racial or gender discrimination as well?

I have long had deeply held beliefs – we can think of them as my “religion” – that to privilege “religious” beliefs above any other beliefs is simply wrong, and that to force religious beliefs on others is immoral. So by your reasoning, I should be able to deny my business services to anyone who holds, or appears to hold, anti-LGBTQ beliefs? Don’t get me wrong – if I ran a bakery, I would serve all paying customers equally. If someone showed up asking for a cake for a ceremony that I thought was idiotic and wrong, like a father/daughter chastity sealing or something like that, I might inwardly roll my eyes, but I WOULD bake that cake. I don’t found my identity on a list of people I choose to exclude from commerce or society or otherwise denigrate.

A business can’t really have a religion, but — even if it could — no one is attempting to discriminate against a business based on its alleged “religion.”

Gee, these are the same arguments that Woolworths made against serving Black customers at their Deep South soda fountains back in the day. I guess discrimination never gets old.

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the plaintiffs didn’t even get to the point of requesting a specific cake or decoration. As soon as the employee found out the genders of the betrothed, he rudely rejected their business.

The customer is likely to suffer far more from a religiously-motivated discriminatory incident as an overall impact.

If a cake shop doesn’t use porno molds, they are not required to suddenly use them just because a customer requests. (Also, can we stop using porno as a comparison case for sexual orientation?) Similarly, if a cake shop offers wedding topper figures that are purchased in a set (groom & bride), it’s fine to say that you don’t offer alternate sets (groom & groom). It’s fine to say you won’t put particular words/phrases on any cakes. But to pretend that swirls, pearls, flowers, generic messages (e.g. “Love is All You Need”), etc. are different when you put them on a cake for a same sex wedding than when you put them on a cake for an opposite sex wedding is silly and discriminatory.

Sorry about “though” twice.