[[The solicitor-general framed the issue in the case: whether the state may compel business owners to express certain viewpoints – here, a viewpoint fundamentally against one’s religious convictions. ]]
That is the whole crux of the argument right there in a nutshell- all the other ‘promoting’ ‘artistic expression’ etc has nothing to do with the case-
Are we a nation that forces religion to act in ways that violate their religious belief or not?
The counter argument of course will be “Yes we do prevent some expressions of religious beliefs for certain issues” (ie: Child sacrifice is not protected and illegal- drugging and kidnapping people for religious purposes, keeping people of a different color out of your congregation isn’t legal is not legal etc-)
The question is, how far into religious beliefs can government and law intrude?
Another question is, why was the gay store that threw a fit and kicked Christians out- screaming profanities at them not punished in like manner as the cake place?
As a Christian I strongly oppose 'gay-marriage' because it is a mockery of God's law and is plainly against His established order. To participate in such a travesty would be to act contrary to God's Will and that is sin. Put simply no government has the right to force me into sinful behavior.
I think the free speech issues are very legitimate and they buttress the even more powerful "free exercise" of religion issues. Please note, if the baker loses then the free exercise clause of the US constitution has been eliminated. Given the arguments of the left over the last few years (ie "hate speech"), could free speech be far behind?
No one should be forced to participate in a gay wedding.
And when they left the bake shop...they cried. Gimme a break.