"Under no definition does forcing a baker to bake a cake they don't want to constitute slavery."

Correct.

But it does constitute coerced speech, in violation of the First Amendment and any notions of freedom.

The bakers in question didn't decline to bake a cake for the SSM couple. They declined to bake a cake that had wording that ran contrary to the baker's beliefs. These same bakers had also declined do cakes for Halloween, adult-themed events, those that had an anti-American message AND a cake with an anti-LGBT message.

These were good people with strong convictions targeted because of their convictions. The same authorities that went after them had previously declined to prosecute bakers who'd refused to make a Christian themed cake.

This case doesn't decide the issue since the SCOTUS decided to judge it narrowly rather than broadly. The SSM warriors will be back. In some ways they've already won since, like so much in the culture wars, the prosecution is the punishment. Many service providers will have learnt that their government will prosecute them for their convictions and even when they win they still suffer the trauma of defending that which shouldn't have to be defended. So they'll hold their collective noses and compromise their convictions in the search to be just left in piece.

But the culture warriors have no intention of leaving them in piece.

We can understand Paul's derogatory feelings about homosexuals. At least a Baker or Chemist would not use that term about homosexuals, nor advertise it. Chemists do not need to stock certain products, and any inquiry just needs to be, "We do not stock ..." Maybe suggest they try .... Chemist.

I voted yes to same sex marriage, not to making and industry out of it, and hopefully, not finding new reasons every day for needless conflict buy the cake some other place!

Isaiah Berlin distinguished what he termed 'negative' from 'positive' freedom: in a political system in which negative freedom prevailed, all was permitted EXCEPT what was expressly forbidden. In a political system of positive freedom, all was banned EXCEPT what was expressly permitted or ordained. Democracies would be characterised by the first; theocratic, 'socialist' and fascist regimes would be characterised by the second.

That raises the question of whether or not a hypothetical Muslim baker would be REQUIRED to bake a cake with an explicitly homosexual message or image on it. Of course he wouldn't, since there is no law, yet, in Australia to compel such behaviour. We all have the right to refrain from doing something which may be quite legal, if we prefer not to. I don't catch every bus that passes me, simply because it would be legal to do so. I can't be compelled to, if I prefer not to. I have free will, in a democratic society, to do whatever is legal OR to forgo the pleasure, as long as I don't break any laws.

Of course, certain explicit acts may, on the other hand, be illegal in either regime: marrying off under-age girls, for example, or beheading people or cutting off someone's right arm and left leg for insulting someone's mythical heroes. Such vile offences would normally be forbidden in any decent civilised society. Hopefully, they will remain crimes in Australia for the foreseeable future.

Joe

Josephus, your many anti-gay posts indicate your real feelings, with your intolerance, based on your religious convictions, you hate gay people. No need to dress it up in niceties like you do. and pretend otherwise. "Us wonderful religious folk wouldn't use the word poofter!" No you just hate and discriminate instead.

In this State NSW; Proprietor's or their agent's, of retail store's have the lawful right to deny access and service to anybody.

Conversely they possess a right to 'inspect' a person's bags upon existing the store. Provided there is a notice prominently displayed and understood, at the entrance to the store, indicating the proprietor or their agent's, reserves the right to 'inspect' a persons baggage upon them exiting that store.

Should the customer deny the proprietor or their agent's, the right to inspect their bags upon request; the proprietor may withdraw any and all Leave, for that customer to enter that store again, for a period to be determined by the proprietor or their agents..

If after viewing the notice, the potential customer decides to continue to enter the store, he/she's is in fact, giving tacit approval and consent to the substance and requirements of that notice.

It should be noted herein; there's no 'power of search' given, with respect to a customers bags. Nor is there any such power conferred on the proprietor or their agent's. Only police have that power, and only then, pursuant to certain circumstance.

None of the above involves police, or the criminal law. In fact it's common law Contract, which is formed; between a potential purchaser and the proprietor; and gains currency, the moment the customer enters the Store.