It is that simple.
You may not refuse service because in that case you are acting as a seller. If Jack had said they could not buy any cake because they were homosexual that would be indeed a violation of the special protections. I might as well say here that I disagree with that concept but that is neither here or there.
What he did is say he would not make a homosexual wedding cake for them. And that is where all the brewhaha started because if he had stopped there bringing any sort of case before the POSS (perpetually offended special snowflakes) commission would have been very difficult. Because he was a nice guy (and you know what they say about that) he tried to explain why he was turning down the commission. Never explain. Say yes or no and leave it.
But as I said taking a commission is an entirely different animal then being a seller or vendor. By taking a commission you are accepting a contract of employment. You can not be forced to accept employment if you do not wish to do so.
That is what you are failing to see.
I will agree that the SCOTUS punted in that case and in others but the right to refuse to be employed still stands.
Just what is the difference btwn accepting a commission and accepting a request and deposit for service, as for custom wedding cakes (which typically cost a lot)?
What he did is say he would not make a homosexual wedding cake for them. And that is where all the brewhaha started because if he had stopped there bringing any sort of case before the POSS (perpetually offended special snowflakes) commission would have been very difficult. Because he was a nice guy (and you know what they say about that) he tried to explain why he was turning down the commission. Never explain. Say yes or no and leave it.
I am sure the offended would have appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights appointees and that they would have concluded that this was a case of discrimination akin to racism, even though in this case protected status is based on feelings.
I will agree that the SCOTUS punted in that case and in others but the right to refuse to be employed still stands.
They did and it should, esp. since the service requested was not only against God's law but the highest law of the state at that time.