The last paragraph you quote is almost certainly why this case will be decided against Phillips. One of the interesting aspects here is why the Court even granted it cert. I suppose the three holdouts who voted against the Obergefell decision are keen to relitigate it and Gorsuch is such a moron-ideologue that he has already written his opinion. Presumably those were the 4 needed cert votes. But there's really nothing to gain. If if goes in favor of Phillips (unlikely), it will be a narrow opinion that carries very little weight for the rest of the law. It's a waste of the Court's time and energy, and we'd heal easier as a society if we just moved on. Kennedy has been the nation's biggest promoter of gay rights, so even if he's uncomfortable using the courts to decide a religious issue, it's really difficult to see him scaling back any gains that he has personally given to the gay community (Kennedy has written literally every single major gay rights opinion). #lolbrooks took on the issue today, arguing that the couple would have been better off engaging rather than litigating. It's an argument that works good in storybooks, but I'm not sure how effective it would be in the world. Classic Brooks though; the glasses don't get any more rose colored.
David Brooks mainlines unicorn farts.Given that context, the neighborly approach would be to say: “Fine, we won’t compel you to do something you believe violates your sacred principles. But we would like to hire you to bake other cakes for us. We would like to invite you into our home for dinner and bake with you, so you can see our marital love, and so we can understand your values. You still may not agree with us, after all this, but at least we’ll understand each other better and we can live more fully in our community.”