I agree with the ruling, although I'm also of the opinion that a private buisiness can and should be able to choose their customers. It's their buisiness, and their buisiness decision.

You do realize that freedom of speech/religion goes both ways, right?  The gay couple now have the freedom to get married at any church/establishment that will perform the ceremony.  That doesn't just take away the freedom of those who do not support gay marriage.  You can't say, "Oh, gay marriage is the allowed in every state, now, so you better support our wedding, or else.  Even if it's your private business."

So, you are wrong.  If he was pushing his beliefs on them, he would have gone to every bakery and told them not to serve them, either.  They pushed their beliefs on him by not just respecting his and finding another bakery.  Instead, they wanted him punished.

exactly!! How do these people not see this!? 

ok, so if a gay bakery owner refused a Christian in exactly the same manner, I imagine people would be up in arms over it, Stop with the Nazi, and if messages on cakes, that is not was asked. It was a simple cake, no message, endorsement or anything.

Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I don´t understand this ruling. Are the supreme court actually claiming that a business owner has the right to discriminate on the basis of the free excercise clause by refusing to sell certain products, i.e they claim that a cake is an expression of a bakers religion? How does that match up with the establishment clause and doesn´t that mean that US citizens now are free to create whatever religion they want and discriminate away? It should be possible for muslim vendors to refuse service to christians, for right-wingers t create a religion that refuse service to african-americans and so on. And the government would have their back, in my opinion clearly violating the establishment clause.

How are they doing that when the product doesn´t differ from making a cake for a straight couple? Also, you mean that he has made no benefits at all from taxes that people pay in the US, his business is completely private and is in no way, not even partially, a product of society? :).

You cant just create a religion out of nowhere thats just anti black or something. There is a certain way this case should be measured instead of blatant racism. As far as we know the baker only refused to make a cake, something he makes himself, his own kind of art. He´s christian he doesnt believe in gay marriage so he wont make a cake for it since he´d be helping something he himself doesnt believe in. 

While thisismeintel´s example is a bit over the top he does have a point. When a KKK member walks into a bakers shop and the baker is black he´s not gonna make a cake with a fire cross on it and man in klux klux klan uniforms around the cross. Nor should he. Its a really really out there example its the extreme of the extreme but I do agree with what he says with it. You cant push your believe on other people as narrow minded as it is every person has a right to believe what they believe in. 

Both of you are crying for a problem that are not exist. Read this with your brain (if you have any)  every one have right to choose, have a right  to have business with someone or to sell their product for someone based on their liking and their own choices, either religion, race, ideology etc.   It's not like there is only one baker open in US for God sake. And also it's not life threatening matter or endangered people life. While medical service is different then bakeries, because it's involve life .  It's clearly both of you don't have any logic here.  

I'm satisfied with the ruling

In your opinion it does not.  In theirs it does, as it is partaking in the ceremony in some manner.  And that is the real difference here.  You wish to push your beliefs on others, I do not.  Same goes for the people taking part in this case.  The gay couple wished to push their views on the baker, punishing him if he didn't concede.  The baker did not.  He didn't want them punished.  He even offered to help them in any other way he could.

Hate groups, yes.  But guess what?  They still have the right to the 1st Amendment.  They have the right to hold any beliefs they wish and write any hateful thing on a sign or cake that they wish.  And if a baker/signmaker doesn't feel comfortable putting that message there, they shouldn't have to.  The same goes for a baker who is does not wish to participate in a gay wedding.  He shouldn't have to.  It's his business.  His beliefs.  His life.

It is all made silly when I can guarantee that there was probably a bakery that would have done what the couple wanted just a quick drive away.  But, instead of letting bygones be bygones, the gay couple wanted him punished.  To me that reeks of a bully.