That's an interesting point, which highlights the challenge of balancing the right to free expression of individual viewpoints and lifestyles. There is an ongoing trend, sponsored by the left, to reduce the extent to which anyone can express themselves in a commercial context. Taking your point of view further, what basis is there for anyone in commerce to express their point of view? Even the person performing the ceremony, if its a civil ceremony is just providing a service. And that same logic can be applied to other situations too. What business is it to the owner of a motel why the sketchy looking couple want to rent a room? Or the bartender serving drinks - he's just providing a commodity too. Or the firearms dealer selling handguns. Or the clerk in a convenience store selling cigarettes.
Of course in the latter cases the government does expect the business owner to act as an agent of society and enforce a set of rules. And in many other ways the government expects businesses to act as agents of the government, collecting taxes, withholding funds from employees, enforcing immigration laws etc. So government is very happy to have businesses make all kinds of discriminatory choices, like denying cigarettes to an under-age person, or not hiring someone without the proper visa, as long as the government gets to determine what the business can and can't do.
Of course when the individuals who run a business would like to determine what they do on their own, that's a different story. In the case of LGBT activists religious businesses are frequently targeted for what can only be described as sting operations. Interestingly, religious groups do not seem to make the same kinds of efforts. How often have you heard of, for example, Christian married couples going in large groups to socialize at ordinarily gay bars, thereby causing the same kind of refusal of service that the LGBT activists create when they seek to have a gay wedding, for example, at a Catholic oriented resort.
I also think that the same government which supports legal action against a bakery which refused service based on their religious views would be entirely supportive of another bakery that refused, for instance, to provide a cake with racist slogans on it for some other kind of event. Thus the real issue ends up being what kind of expression is permitted, and how political power is used to create protected groups.
“Thus the real issue ends up being what kind of expression is permitted, and how political power is used to create protected groups.” ... You have stopped one or two layers too soon. The fundamental issue is who is being served by such oligarchical tyranny? Whom do we focus upon as the real demons at the heart of this campaign to destroy the American Republic as founded?
Well you were so anxious to use a lot of words you conflated a few of my ideas. First, I indicate that the government should have no right to tell a business who they must cater to. Thus, a bakery should be able to turn down whoever they want to.
And yes, a business should be able to be reflective of their views - but that doesn’t mean it’s smart to always do so. That’s my only point. They’ve accomplished zip zero nada - except maybe bankruptcy on their part. That’s not, as the Bible says, acting “wise as serpents and gentle as doves.” To do so, would have been to bake the dykes the best cake they could, and maybe charged a little premium on it. Wise as serpents. Gentle as doves. And 150 grand to the good.