It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 which is significant.
Also significant that the two most liberals, Ginsburg and Sotomayor  dissented. You can get a .pdf copy of the opinion which I scanned through a little. It's actually very interesting. Here's a key phrase I read:

"The Colorado Court of Appeals was wrong to conclude the Philips's conduct was not expressive because a reasonable observer would think he is merely complying with Colorado's public accommodations law. This argument would justify any law that compelled protected speech. And this Court has never accepted it.

Eegore wrote on 06/04/18 at 09:07:27:

   When he said "I'd make a cake for two dogs, but not for two women." he violated the law. ..."

 So I want a Pork Sandwich, I walk into a shop that sells nothing but custom Sandwiches. They will NOT, make me a ‘Pork’  Sandwich, because they don’t, ‘believe’ in Pork.   Do I sue, or go to the next store ?

So I want a box of Bullets, I walk into a sporting goods store. They will Not, sell me a box of bullets, because they don’t, ‘believe’ in guns.  Do I sue, or go to the next store ?

(Oh, and most certainly, need to add a, Skin Color,  Race,  Religion,  Sexual Preference, Heritage, to the above)

Once again the point is simply missed:

If I walk into a store and the guy at the counter says.... You are a white Christian, I will not serve you! That is OK with me. This is a free country. I would not sue, call the police or any other thing. It is that mans inalienable right to be a racist a*$&$*$& if he wants to be. On the other hand it is my right to not go there and buy his products. additionally it is my right to share my experience with others and it is their right not to shop there also.

If someone does not like me for any reason. I would prefer they tell me so, so that I can spend my money somewhere else. I do not prefer that the Government steps in and forces me to support a racist A*%&^$, by forcing him to be something he is not.

What ever happened in this country where people wore big boy pants and handled life without the interference of the government? We have become a society of children that run to Daddy crying, Daddy, Daddy look what Bobby did he didn't treat me right. People in Western culture need to grow up.

"If I walk into a store and the guy at the counter says.... You are a white Christian, I will not serve you! That is OK with me. This is a free country"

 I feel the same but that doesn't change the law.  Feel that way, do it all day long and see if that changes the legal structure where you live.  Keep comparing cakes to sandwiches and see if the law changes.

 Those laws are put there by the constituents, like you and me.  Complaining about it doesn't change anything.  Comparing our opinions of how the law should be interpreted, or if it should exist at all is at least 50% of the problem.

 When laws we don't agree with pass where I live we do something about it.  When they tried to crack down on marijuana we responded by legalizing it.  

 I hope every cake guy in the nation wins their respective legal battles, but I'm not going to gripe without having knowledge of the law, and the nexus that connects the cake guys action to the legislative crime.  His statement violated the law enough to go to trial, no opinion or comparative sandwich talk will change that.

 

“… Those laws are put there by the constituents, like you and me…”

Not even remotely true.
         It Used to be,
until a few got by, with NO ONE  knowing about them.
Then More, then More, Then MORE,
        THEN the, "Big Daddy”.
 “You Have to Pass it to see what is IN it”

Their was not to many, ‘constituents’, that knew about what was in that.

After that, just worse. This, ‘Passing’, Laws, has become a JOKE.
 The, ‘Elected’, talk about a Bill, make a big deal about it, fight over it, then, BOTH, sides ‘tack on’ their little, pet, Pork Bellies.
And the, ‘constituents’, don’t have a CLUE !!!!!!!!!

It is NOT,  the  NORM, to pass a ‘law’, and have the, “constituents”, know about it.
It is NOW, UNUSUAL, to have a law, which is talked about by everybody.
Then when the, ‘constituents’, have decided,
AGAIN, the,  ‘Elected’,  ‘tack on’ their, pet, Pork Bellies.

“…Complaining about it doesn’t change anything…”

Here is a recent talked about one.    
Pedophiles can go into Little Girls Bathrooms,
       If they, Pretend, to Pretend!

Well, that's right, don't think it was a, change.
Yet I wonder, how many, 'constituents',
 Knew, what that 'law' was about ?

Eegore wrote on 06/04/18 at 09:07:27:

 When he said "I'd make a cake for two dogs, but not for two women." he violated the law.  
 Luckily it worked out in his favor because its better to encourage customers to go somewhere else than to encourage businesses to be afraid of customers.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 06/04/18 at 17:34:47:


Ya know, I also would like to know, where that statement came from.
I am not aware of that Baker saying such a thing.

MnSpring wrote on 06/04/18 at 17:44:45:


Even IF he said that, it's Not wrong.