The interesting question about this case isn't whether one has the right to practice religion freely or whether the right to equal treatment supersedes that. I think those questions are already settled. The interesting question in this case, and the one that will decide which was it goes is the age old question of "what is art?"

It is generally accepted law that we can't force artists to create work that violates their beliefs. On the other hand it is also generally accepted that service providers can't exclude customers because of religious belief. On the one extreme your plummer can't tell you he won't fix your drain because you're a catholic. On the other hand we can't force a Satanist sculptor to create a manger scene for your church. That's not the question being asked here. The question is whether a cake counts as artistic expression that ought to be protected.

Personally I have no idea, and I'm not afraid to admit that. The interesting thing here is that 99 percent of cakes that we all encounter don't and aren't intended to convey a point of view. But that 1% (or less) that are (as anyone can see on the Food Network these days) sure could be counted as creative expression. I think it's less than ideal to have to have the Court decide what counts as art, but I suppose it's less bad than having to leave the law undecided. We'll see.

PS: Nice to hear from you again! Been a while.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.html

Therein lies the crucial difference between the cases: Silva’s objection was about what she sold; a design-based objection. Phillips’s objection was about to whom it was sold; a user-based objection. The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. Indeed, Masterpiece once even refused a cupcake order to lesbians upon learning that they were for the couple’s commitment ceremony.

Business owners generally have wide discretion over what they do and do not sell: A vegan bakery needn’t sell real buttercream cakes. A kosher bakery needn’t sell cakes topped with candied bacon, or in the shape of crosses. By contrast, business owners generally do not have discretion over how their products are later used: A kosher bakery may not refuse to sell bread to non-Jews, who might use it for ham-and-cheese sandwiches.

In his defense, Phillips has pointed out that he refuses to sell Halloween cakes or demon-themed cakes; he analogizes these refusals to his unwillingness to sell gay wedding cakes. In other words, he maintains that his turning away the gay couple was about what was requested, not who was requesting it.

The problem with this retort is that “gay wedding cakes” are not a thing. Same-sex couples order their cakes from the same catalogs as everyone else, with the same options for size, shape, icing, filling, and so on. Although Phillips’s cakes are undeniably quite artistic, he did not reject a particular design option, such as a topper with two grooms — in which case, his First Amendment argument would be more compelling. Instead, he flatly told Craig and Mullins that he would not sell them a wedding cake.

Just one more religious conservative attempting to reframe his imposition of his beliefs on others as a type of "freedom" which is under threat.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Have a snowy barn owl, just because.

I didn't click the link, but I did read the quote in your post. The baker is entitled to his views and while I don’t necessarily agree with him, I can somewhat understand where he’s coming from. That said, if you ask me, a cake is a cake whether you’re designing it or selling it and if you’re comfortable with offering one service then there’s no reason why shouldn’t be comfortable offering another service.

All of that aside, what sometimes seems to get lost in this conversations is that while not codified into law, public perception and public practice can become kind of laws in and of themselves. That very fact is part of the reason why our government has so many laws trying to protect our rights and why our courts often have hearings centered around our rights. Religious freedom, right to own property, right to vote, right to a fair hearing, on and on and on. These conversations are ever constant and ideas and arguments are introduced and dropped with changing perceptions all the time that without that government protection, conditions for minorities could change very rapidly. Heck, it’s fair to argue that even with government protection sometimes minorities get the shaft. For example, in regards to religions, there are countries out there where social perception to religious minorities has allowed governments to codify into law practices that severely restrict religious practices if not outright penalize people of religious minorities for no other reason that they’re a religious minority.

I’m having a hard time saying what I’m trying to say because I can’t find the words to say it, but I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s important to recognize that all parties in this court case feel very strongly about their viewpoints and their rights. That’s a good thing. It’s important to have convictions. What I think is more important to recognize though is that this court case is another facet of what should be a never ending discussion in how we can ensure we all live in a just society and that that should be a goal we should all strive for, because the alternative isn’t pretty.

As an aside, I went to the bookstore this week to pick up a study Quran to replace the one I gave out so many years ago. The fact that I was able to do that without any concern or obstacle involved really did remind me of how important tolerance and freedom and protection of the laws are, both for me as an individual and for society as a whole. I’m just one man and it’s just one book (a very important though) but it goes to show that these conversations we have do impact us in ways both big and small.