"a weapon to oppress anyone who dissents from _today's_ politically-correct rules"

Every age has had it own rules, formal and informal, concerning what is politically correct. In the past, censorship and blasphemy laws were used as weapons to uphold those rules.

The more important point about this situation is the lack of forethought by both the plaintiffs in this case, and also those Christians in the US who have picked up religious freedom laws, extended them, and are now using them as a weapon, just like the gays in this case.

There is a clear difference between being free to speak or express oneself and being forced to speak. Witness the outrage over Colin Kaepernick's refusal to stand during the anthem at a football game. Oddly, many of those who support the bakers here are the most outraged by his refusal.

The misuse and abuse of the religious freedom decision by SCoTUS is going to descend into farce. Satanist groups are now suing run after school programs. What of the inevitable Xtian outrage when a Muslim shop assistant refuses to handle alcohol or bacon, or her taxi driver brother who refuses to carry guide dogs? The potential for such laws to tear at the civility that allows everyday life is enormous.

The county clerk who made headlines by refusing to issue marriage applications to gays, in a state that allowed SSM is another example. She has been divorced and married three or so times. Imagine the outrage from her should a traditionalist Catholic shopkeeper refuse to serve her on the basis that divorce and remarriage offend his religious views.

Having a right is one thing. Insisting upon asserting it in all situations is foolish, as anyone who drives will know.

Maybe this all of nothing approach to life is part of the general decrease in empathy which has been noted by researchers. Not everything is neat, ambiguity is common, other people exist, and sometimes their rights clash. We seem to be getting worse at dealing with this.

I, like many in my vicinity, are way past the moment in time, when the comfort zones of the " strange among us" matter, or even deserve a second thought.
If I were the baker though, I would be tempted to put the cake in the homosexuals "love hole"!

Brendan, so you're arguing that people should be able to discriminate on whatever basis they like?

Sex, Skin color, religion, marital status? sexual orientation, age?

What is it all of the above some of the above or none of the above?

I've not followed the legal aspects of this case but do have some views on the overall topic.

My understanding is that the baker accepted the order in the first place and that it was technical difficulties that caused the failure to fulfil the order. If they did not want the order it should not have been accepted. If that's an issue of staff training that's the bakers problem not the problem of the people placing the order.

In this instance if the order was accepted it should have been fulfilled and the if the business owners did not want further orders some appropriate notices to make their stance clear to customers and staff training were the appropriate response.

I do though think that no one should be forced to provide a service not already agreed to that goes against personal beliefs if where they don't receive government support to provide that service and are willing to accept the logical consequences
- If the Government was restricting competition in an area to help the viability of business and therefore limiting alternatives for the customer then options to refuse service should be diminished.
- If you are employed to do a job that the employer is willing to accept then the option is to do the job or leave the job.

R0bert

I'm sure there a team of queers traveling around looking for Christian bakeries just to start trouble with, so they can scream 'discrimination' and be portrayed as helpless victims.
They're deliberately messing with other peoples lives for no good reason.
The victims are the bakers, their lives and businesses affected by attention seeking miscreants.

Political correctness is tyranny under another name. People in a bakery, or any other private business, do not have to sell anything to anyone if they don't wish too. They might lose other business over their refusal, and they might receive abuse from the Left (the only section of society wanting enslave everybody) but they should be able to refuse service to poofters, black people, white people, left handers, Presbyterians, and so on, if they wish to do so. What problems this attitude causes for them is their problem only. For the law to stick its nose in and tell who they can and cannot serve is a travesty. Ireland has shown itself, again, to be a hick country with a nasty, authoritarian streak.