mhaze,

I don't want you to get the wrong impression.
I'll now take my tongue out of my cheek and try
once again to show you the point that I was
trying to make in this discussion. Here's
another link that just might clarify:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/

Foxy,

As with most things, on this issue there are facts and there are opinions.

I gave a series of facts that you found uncomfortable and therefore ignored. I also gave an opinion ie that the case was about 1st amendment rights.

You claimed my facts were wrong when instead you actually meant that my opinions were wrong. That's fine as far as it goes.

But more disturbingly you acted as though your opinions (or more accurately the opinions of others that you liked) were facts - facts that I should get straight.

Now Foxy, it can be argued that the case might be about discrimination but that's an opinion, not a fact. But you want it to be a fact and assume that when I disagree then I'm missing the facts. On the other hand, it might be about free speech. That's also an opinion, not a fact. The court decided to treat the case as neither a free speech nor discrimination issue, instead treating it as a procedural fairness issue.

But the larger issue will come back with other similar cases working their way through the courts.

But where you went wrong and why I was 'ungentlemanly' toward you was that you confused mere opinion with fact merely because you liked that opinion. And the only way you could do that was to gratuitously ignore actual facts.

mhaze,

There certainly are facts and opinions.

And as I've been trying to tell you - the case before
the courts involved much more than wedding cakes and
it could have huge implications for all retailers and
service providers.

That's because the baker Jack Phillips owner of the
Denver area Masterpiece Cakeshop claimed that his first
amendment right of free speech and religion exempted him
from the state's anti-discrimination law. To Colorado however
he is a retailer and is barred from discriminating based on
race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

The narrow decision made by the courts chose to not deal
with the full implications - as my given links affirmed.
I have nothing more to add on this subject.