It would be interesting to see if the finding had been different had the person ordering the cake been straight. The idea that a business person should be forced to assist someone to express a political or moral view that they find abhorrent is grossly unjust. As the author points out, the bakers did not refuse to serve a gay customer because he was gay. It was the item he ordered that they refused to make, and presumably it would have made no difference if the customer was straight and ordered the same cake. They refused to write in a icing a view they found abhorrent. While it might be reasonable to protect gays from discrimination, this is actually protecting a particular moral view point rather than a person.

Dear Cobber,

<<"In fact, most homosexuals are not gays." What?>>

Most homosexuals are not gay about it, they are not particularly proud of their sexual tendencies nor rejoice about it, parade about it or in fact attribute much importance to it. It's just how they are, they get on with their lives, some have sex with their own gender, the other gender (because they value family more than satisfying their lust) or both, while others are celibate because they have more important things to do.

<<they broke the law, it simple.>>

It is not simple at all - who dared introducing laws to obstruct their life to begin with? What right have they to do so?

<<Would we allow a doctor to not provide blood transfusions because it was against his religious beliefs?>>

It's not for you or me to allow or disallow anything unless we are the doctor's employer. If the doctor works in a public hospital or receives public funds, then of course their employer, the public, can issue conditions - but not if they work privately and never hide the list of those services they provide and those they do not.

The question all those who applaud the decision should answer is the question posed by the author. Please be honest, do not shilly shally, yes or no.
But would we demand that a Jewish baker make a cake depicting a swastika? Or that a Muslim baker make a cake depicting Muhammad?

My bet is that the judge would have found differently. The cake shop does not refuse service to homosexauls, it simply refuses to perform an icing request.

Perhaps being an Athiest I do not have the problems the cake shop had, if someone wanted the depiction of the muscular Jesus on top of the cake I would willingly do so, if or whatever some one wanted I would do it, if fornication was required (Ancient Greek or Asian) let's do it, what is the problem, the world today is filled up with all of these stupid religious beliefs (man made), to not make a cake depicting gayness is ludicrous to say the least.
Suseonline you are correct, get out of cake making.

Richard
Thanks for a well-written article that carefully and fairly teases out some complex and controversial issues.

Chris C
I agree, the question here is of conflicting rights. I support gay rights and marriage equality, but I’m also a supporter of free speech and freedom of conscience, even if someone else’s conscience prompts them to do something I find repugnant.

I’m quite nervous about enshrining positive rights in legislation. They usually infringes against negative rights, and are often things I think are best addressed through social norms and sanctions, not by legislation.

Issues only become a "controversy", "crisis" or "dilemma" is because fanatical utopian leftists make it so.

They demand universal/unanimous support for their particular perspective, imposed on all citizens by compulsory laws and regulations.

So this shop won't bake your cake. Boo-hoo.
Is that the only cake shop in the universe?

Suseonline "If the cake shop owners are so much into their religion that they can't even serve gay people, then perhaps they should not be in such a business"

Or Mr Prissy Pants can just shop elsewhere.
Like the cake shop across the road with a giant rainbow flag in the damn window!

They didn't refuse to serve gays, they refused to DECORATE a cake with a particular design.

The author is right. What if that design had been a swastika or Muhammad?
Or a depiction of an aborted fetus, animal cruelty or an electric chair?
Can't the shop (not a judge) decide where to draw the line?

With customers and businesses free to exercise their "negative" liberty, cake shops can choose to bake or not bake "gay cakes" and customers can choose which shop to buy from.
No crisis.

"imagine a teacher who refused to teach Asians, or a female nurse who refused to treat men"

They can work in a school with no Asian students or a women's or children's hospital.
If they work in a general-public environment, they can get fired.

"keep Jews and blacks out of restaurants or women out of snooker clubs"

Crisis, what crisis?
Go to the restaurant that WILL serve you.
Go to the women-only snooker club (no man-germs allowed).
Or an anyone-welcome snooker club.

"My children’s right to an education..."

Doesn't exist.
Education for children is a desirable outcome or preference, not a "right".
Nor is it the government's "duty" to provide it, but yours, the parents.

"Positive" rights are imagined fantasies.
"Negative" liberty is our natural state, until overruled by the intrusions of others (including these namby-pamby "inclusiveness" laws).

Where our natural liberty is violated (e.g. "shoot you in the head") the perpetrator can and should be punished.
End of story.