Kind of hard to separate the two. It's like saying, "But your honor, I didn't refuse him service because he was Jewish. I refused him service because he was wearing a Yarmulke." Hell hath no fury like a lesbian scorned and they used the state and the law to extract their revenge far out of proportion to the damages. That's probably their best argument on appeal; the punishment far out-weighed the infraction.
Not at all. It is more analogous to the difference between refusing to serve someone because they are Jewish and refusing to cater a Kosher bar mitzvah.
I don’t think it’s all that difficult to separate the two things.
First, Sweet Cakes had already served the complainant by providing cake for other events.
Second, the specific demand was for a cake celebrating a homosexual “marriage”, which for the Kleins is an event with specific religious connotations, and under their religion is recognized as a one-man, one-woman institution.
To conflate the two requires disregarding the rights of the Kleins to act on their religious belief.
JMO, of course.
Not really, they had been selling them cakes and other goodies so it wasn’t just because they were gay. If it were, they wouldn’t have been selling them anything. It was because the wedding was against their religious values. Big difference.