https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.html Business owners generally have wide discretion over what they do and do not sell: A vegan bakery needn’t sell real buttercream cakes. A kosher bakery needn’t sell cakes topped with candied bacon, or in the shape of crosses. By contrast, business owners generally do not have discretion over how their products are later used: A kosher bakery may not refuse to sell bread to non-Jews, who might use it for ham-and-cheese sandwiches. In his defense, Phillips has pointed out that he refuses to sell Halloween cakes or demon-themed cakes; he analogizes these refusals to his unwillingness to sell gay wedding cakes. In other words, he maintains that his turning away the gay couple was about what was requested, not who was requesting it. The problem with this retort is that “gay wedding cakes” are not a thing. Same-sex couples order their cakes from the same catalogs as everyone else, with the same options for size, shape, icing, filling, and so on. Although Phillips’s cakes are undeniably quite artistic, he did not reject a particular design option, such as a topper with two grooms — in which case, his First Amendment argument would be more compelling. Instead, he flatly told Craig and Mullins that he would not sell them a wedding cake.Therein lies the crucial difference between the cases: Silva’s objection was about what she sold; a design-based objection. Phillips’s objection was about to whom it was sold; a user-based objection. The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. Indeed, Masterpiece once even refused a cupcake order to lesbians upon learning that they were for the couple’s commitment ceremony.
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.”