I think the ruling is fine. At the end of the day the customer is still the boss because he'll run out of business if people buy elsewhere.

So i would like to question your logic here!  do you think people will die if they are not eating Cake?  LMAO  

Edit: you never explained anything in your previous comment, what i see and everybody see are you push your agenda and your complain, and tried to force your idea on everything. PERIOD 

Religious beliefs are like as flexible as the day is long.  This doesn't mean that I publicize my beliefs because that would violate my right to free speech lol (this is too easy).  So, whenever I see a customer I don't like, I just remember I have a religious belief and you are denied service.  That is what laws were protecting against.  

In the course of our conversation, religion may not even come up.  So even if you don't believe in my God, its okay, you get service.  But If the guy behind you is gay, he can be denied because he triggered my religion.   I want to copyright that term:  'Triggered my religion'.   Thats how dumb this is.  It isn't absolute.  Me using 'religious beliefs' as a device to target people wouldn't be the first time it has been done.  

BTW as if there was a God(s) he(she/they) would not give a damn about sexuality. 

Dude I can see that you put lots of effort in your argument and while it has the merit of some reflection it is in the end nothing more than a house of cards that a simple sneeze can bring down.

First, you cannot compare the sale of guns for the very OBVIOUS reason that if you refuse to sell a gun to someone which you suspect is going to kill, you are SAVING a life. (Ideally you shouldn't sell any guns to any one but that's another debate)

So In what universe you are preventing a murder by refusing a wedding cake to a gay couple? What OBJECTIVE reason do you have to refuse such a cake? Other than ignorant religious beliefs? Try to think for a second on this. Imagine this news title: "Gun salesman saves lives as he refuses to sell gun to suspect which was later arrested after proof has been found that he planned a terrorist attack"

Now let's compare it to the issue at hand: Baker saves lives as he refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple which were later arrested after proof was found that they planned to what??? kill people with their cake?" I don't even know how to finish this comparison, it's so ridiculously totally unrelated to the sales of guns and the very good reasons to refuse to sell guns to someone.

So no, the cake thing does NOT become an issue the way the gun thing does. Like not even close!

The baker does not want to bake that cake because he's a bigoted individual that wants to impose his religion upon others. He can't force people to not be gay in their lives so he goes for his second best option: refuse service to them in his store. it's not much, I admit but it's a SEED for bigotry and discrimination.

The baker did NOT do the best he could since by definition the best is what you can actually do and he could have baked that cake, it was not above his strength, it was not going to give him cancer to bake that cake, so not only did he NOT do the best he could, he also acted CONDESCENDING and disrespectful towards a customer. The deal in a free country is to live your life freely and LET OTHERS LIVE THEIRS. The baker was supposed to do a JOB, the gay couple was going into a bakery to get a cake. Like I said before, NO ONE forces the baker to bake cakes if he does not want for whatever reason. bigotry for example but then why become a baker? Whereas the gay couple were just doing what any American is supposed to be able to do: ENTER INSIDE A BUSINESS NOT TO TURN THE OWNER GAY NOT TO BECOME HIS FRIEND but to do what he is supposed to do. HIS JOB, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.

You say "If the couple really wanted to just be like everyone else, they would've gone to another bakery"

Well again wrong. being like EVERYONE ELSE means being ABLE to go where EVERY ONE ELSE CAN GO. So by refusing service to that gay couple, the baker made it so that the gay couple COULD NOT be like everyone else. Everyone else can get a cake in that store so why not that gay couple (if you really believe they have the same rights as anyone else).

And finally it's not about forcing the baker to do something. The baker became baker of his own free will. It's called taking on responsibilities. If I choose to work in an office then I MUST go every day to the office to work. It's not about anyone forcing me it's just me taking my responsibilities. If I don't like it I QUIT and if the baker does not like serving customers then let him quit and do something else. Serving customers is part of the job, if you don't like it, don't do a job where you'll have to serve customers.

You need to stop LYAO. The ass is not made to be laughed off, I'm no doctor but it could cause medial issues for your ass so go easy on it.

And yet another question I have already answered, though I'll give you this: There as been so many posts in this thread that you may not have seen it.

So do I think people will die if they are not eating cake. Let me see... No, they would not die. But is that your best argument here?

Cause I'm sure you realize a Chinese person would not like it if you called him F**** C**** piece of ****** go ****** ****. Yet I'll ask you the same stupid question you asked me:

Do you think that Chinese person would die hearing you say those horrible words? No, he would not die, yet you'd STILL be banned from this forum. Or someone would still sue you in real life if you said that face to face right? But why? According to you, if one does not die of something, then it's OK to do that thing. Do you realize how stupid that line of reasoning is?

And about your Edit: you seem bipolar, going from LYAO to whining about my agenda that everybody sees me pushing. And despite so many comments I made in this thread, you dare say I did not explain anything? And tried to force my ideas on everything? (I guess you mean everyone) It's called reasoning and using logic and I admit I am rather good at that.

Now I think it's my turn to LMAO

I'm not sure what sort of cake was requested, actually.

"How are they doing that when the product doesn´t differ from making a cake for a straight couple?"

I don't know what sort of cake was requested. The cake requested might have been one that celebrated same-sex marriage.

"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? :)."

I'm not sure what you're getting at but for what it's worth, yes, he benefits from taxpayer money and I'm sure, if the defendant was the owner, he also paid his fair share of taxes.

I am on the middle in this debate. A business should be able to operate the way it wants to a certain degree and refusing to bake the cake should be allowable, but for different reasons than were raised here. The ruling should be that you cannot be forced to make products that have political meaning behind them.

The cake shop should be forced to bake a wedding cake, but whether that cake has anything specific to gay people should be optional.

I rearranged some stuff purely because I'm too lazy to make multiple quotes, everything except the font and numbers is unchanged though.

For the bolded parts, go back to my first part where I clearly stated "I'm not trying to equate these two things together."

1. What do you define as ignorant? As a Christian I'm interested in hearing this. And as I stated before, there are branches of Christianity that perform gay marriage ceremonies, so this idea of bundling all branches together just doesn't work. In my own standards I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I have no problem if you are gay and love you all the same, I just cant get behind the ceremony itself because it's not what I see as good. The people themselves are not evil, just the institution is, and even then evil is a bad word for it, I prefer dislike. That being said, as a libertarian, you are free to do as you please, as long as you don't force your beliefs onto others or cause violence. In this case there was a force of beliefs by forcing someone else to make a cake for something he doesn't agree with when he offered his services in many other ways. Not once did the baker hand out a Bible pamphlet and call them evil gays forcing them out of his store, so demonizing this baker wont go anywhere.

2. Yes comparing these two is stupid and ridiculous, which is why I focused on the mindsets of the owners of themselves. I hate making extreme examples, but everything was based off broad statements you previously made, so unless there is a clear concise answer that has preset parameters, any example of certain mindsets and seeing how this may go too far is fair game. The right to sell a cake and a right to sell a gun set to the sellers standards is by technicality fair and comparable in a sense, so I used it without trying to demonize the gay couple.

3. Except for the part where he offered other services to the couple (http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cake/). He also refuses to make anti-American cakes and Halloween cakes, first for obvious reason and second for religious beliefs. Willfully being bigoted does not include offering other services, EVER. Knowing the facts that went into this case is important.

4. This is an argument presented purely by emotion and opinion which refuses to take into account both sides of the coin. You were not there, therefore you couldn't know if he was being condescending and disrespectful given the descriptions of the case. And your idea of living freely is just wrong. According to you, the couple have the right to live freely, but the baker has to do what said couple wants even if he doesn't morally agree with it and offers other services to said couple in compromise, otherwise he's a bigot. That doesn't sound like the right to live freely, that sounds like forcing a set of beliefs on someone who doesn't agree, which is very authoritarian and evil.

5. The baker in this case DID offer other services to the couple, no matter how much you ignore it. The only thing he didn't offer to do was make a cake for a ceremony he found illegitimate, which again is protected under the freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment. There were most likely hundreds of other options that weren't far that more than likely would've welcomed the couple with open arms. I don't see how taking him to court when he offered other services to the couple was the inherent right thing to do.

If I went to a bakery that was run by a gay man in which he offered me services but refused to make a cake for a straight wedding, is it discrimination then?

(The answer to that is also no to me)

6. You don't HAVE to go to your office job everyday, but if you don't, there will be consequences. The baker doesn't HAVE to serve anyone, but if he doesn't he'll go out of business and lose respect. Nobody is forced to do anything. The baker did offer services, but refused when it started to involve his moral compass, which to me is fair, but others who don't agree can also boycott the baker. If the CEO of Apple said Fuck Christians and Christianity, I wouldn't sue, but I'd boycott in a heartbeat along with others and drastically influence his company to the point where he either leaves, gets fired, or the company goes under. The couple dealt with a case that went nowhere near as far as the example I stated, but decided to make this personal and force their own beliefs on the baker through this lawsuit then just go somewhere where they were welcomed.

It did directly say marriage and the name of the two men.

Aggressive? You're the one that said you would use the force of the government to make someone bake a stinking cake. You realize you're teetering on the edge of fascism there, right? Anyway, he is just asking you what would happen if the baker still refused. I mean jail time is really the only answer, right?