Dear Foxy,

«What they have to decide in the US Courts is whether
a person's religious convictions take precedence
over anti-discrimination laws.»

But that's only one third of the issue - the other two thirds are:

2) Whether one's behaviour is a result of a true conviction (and not of hatred and pretence)?
3) Whether one's convictions are indeed religious (and not delusional)?

Well, how can the courts tell? Courts can neither read minds nor have a clue about what religion is and isn't.

I believe (and can explain why, but it would be long) that had the only question been #1 (what you presented: "whether a person's religious convictions take precedence over anti-discrimination laws"), then both legislators and courts would have ruled long ago that religion overrides anti-discrimination. However, it is the suspicions #2 and #3 that complicate the matter.

What I am saying is, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so do not impose anti-discrimination laws on PRIVATE businesses altogether.
(such laws may still be imposed on businesses that receive any public benefits, including businesses that run as companies because incorporation is a public benefit)

Dear Yuyutsu,

The issues are more complex than what you're
suggesting - that's why the courts in this
instance chose not to go any further - yet.

"What they have to decide in the US Courts is whether
a person's religious convictions take precedence
over anti-discrimination laws."

No, what they had to decide was whether a free citizen can be forced to say/write/paint/design etc something that he/she fundamentally disagrees with.

The man wasn't refusing to serve these star-crossed lovers. He wasn't even refusing to make them a cake, only to use his expertise to put messages that would express support for SSM on that cake.

That you simply refuse to acknowledge these simple facts while asserting intellectual rigour is more than a little amusing.

mhaze,

Firstly get your facts straight - (no pun intended)
then you can distort them as you please.

Foxy,

I'm looking forward to you explaining which facts I got wrong. Supporting links would help your claim. I won't be holding my breathe but in the event that you do actually respond, I'll most definitely provide proof of anything I've said above.

mhaze,

There's plenty on the internet on this case.

Here's just one link:

http://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-620661