The bakers did not refuse service. It was the creative design they refused. Sarah was actually asked to leave and not receive service. Get it?
I wasn’t aware of that, so maybe I’m wrong in making that particular comparison. But the greater point is, does a private business owner have the right to refuse service to anyone?
I see both sides, and I’m a big fan of SHS and am sorry this happened to her. But I also think there is a bigger point to be made here about freedom and limitations on same.
It seems to me that most everyone on FR has their dander up over this more than Mrs. Sanders herself seems to.
I wish more people understood this. As owners of a bakery open to the public, they had an implied contract to serve anybody who could meet their terms ... that is, they would bake a cake, for an agreed-upon price. They couldn't legally refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual, or even a child molester, so long as the terms were abided by. But they had no obligation to add to the product written words that violated their moral sensibilities, something completely different than selling a cake for an agreed-upon price. There's no similarity between that case, and a restaurant refusing to serve a person on account of his political beliefs. I would not support any establishment that would do such a thing.