Not offhand, but the definition of "public accomodation" has expanded significantly. Originally, it was meant to simply mean that you couldn't throw people out of restaurants and hotels and bars because they were black. Now it means just about anything the politicians want it to mean.
The general rule they taught me in business school was that if your door is open to the public you have to take whatever customer walks in -- if you didn't want to get in trouble.
The OR case is a bit odd. The bakery was asked to make a cake for a ceremony that is illegal in OR and then got in trouble for it.
It may be possible to refuse business because your perception is that you would be an accessory to an illegal act. That may or may not work given who is in office. Certainly claiming a religious exception is not working.
We live in perilous times.
“The OR case is a bit odd. The bakery was asked to make a cake for a ceremony that is illegal in OR and then got in trouble for it.”
I don’t think gay weddings are *illegal* to hold in Oregon. The ceremonies just don’t have any legal effect.
But my understanding is about the same as yours - once you agree to deal with the public, you lose certain rights to choose which members of the public.
This is lawlessness -- it's all about "me, me, me" and what "I" (various petty officials, including Holder) think the law should be, not what it actually says, as established by due process. Selective enforcement.
I remember when the terms "exclusive" or "for the discriminating client" were a good thing in high-level retail business. Now, you can be prosecuted.
Thanks for a good discussion.