[DoodleDawg]

In Phillips’ situation at Masterpiece Cakeshop, his closely held belief was that it is wrong to use his artistic talents to promote gay marriage. In Cracker Barrel’s case, the closely held belief is that it is wrong (not to mention bad for business) to knowingly provide space and service to hateful people who advocate for others’ death.

The difference being that sexual orientation is protected by state anti-discrimination laws and hateful people are not.

[Kaslin]

true

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

So, if a black person comes into Masterpiece Cakes and tries to order a cake for a "Kill the Crackers" Party then Jack must bake the cake because blacks are a protected class?

How about a woman ordering a "Happy Abortion" cake?

Abortion is "the law of the land" after all.

Either you can refuse a commission for any reason or you can not. If you can not then many acts of criminal activity against you are legal as long as they leave a quarter. They were just "forcing a commission."

People have used this argument when it comes to hookers, saying they can not be raped because they sell sex.

I think the argument is a bunch of hooey because you can decline commissions. And so the law has found.

[Manly Warrior]

I suppose it matters to ask “ do you agree?”.

[Don W]

The difference *I* see is that refusing to work for someone is somewhat different from calling for their violent death.

But that’s just me.

[xzins]

Actually, Phillips did serve homosexuals. He just wouldn’t paint them a specialty cake.

Cracker Barrel, to be the same as Phillips, would have to serve the guy anything on the regular menu and only refuse to put “death penalty for gays” in whipping cream on a large pancake.