From what I'm reading, they never got that far.

`The facts of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission are simple. Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited the Masterpiece bakery and looked through a photo album of custom-designed cakes. When the owner, Jack Phillips, greeted them, they told him (according to his own testimony) that they “wanted a wedding cake for ‘our wedding.’” Phillips told them that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. They left immediately without discussing any details of their proposed wedding cake.`

http://prospect.org/article/press-wrong-on-masterpiece-cakeshop-baker-lost

Yeah, but they didn't get that far

You can't sell simple white cakes for weddings, you see

Wedding cakes have to be customised for the occasion

He could've made a fairly generic wedding cake, they're usually not specifically decorated aside from the topper.

A generic wedding cake. I'm sorry, that sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Wedding cakes aren't generic, they really have to be painstakingly designed

It's takes between 3 to 6 hours

By generic I mean subscribing to the standard designs

Most wedding cakes are not indicative of the genders of the couple save for the topper.

Yeah, but it goes against his religion to make cakes for weddings he disagrees with, so that's a problem too

You know what would have been better? If they just went to a different fucking Baker

I agree

Instead it looks like they wanted to have it out

@Deleted User I'm trying to find a way for the gay couple and the Baker to leave happy. "I don't want to do a gay wedding cake, but I will do a generic wedding cake and you do with it what you will" and then they say "no thanks"

anyone wanna debate about gaddafi?

They never got that far though, so we're purely in a hypothetical scenario.

But that's the thing, he doesn't want to accomodate the wedding because it goes against his religion @kilo (twitter-imkilo)

In any manner

It still would've been up to the gay couple to not file a civil rights greivance

@Deleted User I understand, but allowing a business to discriminate on their religion and next a business will refuse to serve black people

And I think a large number of gay couples would've just gone on with their lives and found another shop.

I'm sure that's thing already

A business that refuses to serve black people is actively cutting off business, it may try to do it, but it won't last.

If one business refuses to serve black people, they lose revenue. And, more people refuse to come because the owners are racist. Free market will ensure that the place goes bankrupt

It's the beauty of capitalism

Before the Jim Crow laws, businesses were not interested in discrimination based on race because it harmed their profits.

^^yeep!

Sowell's most recent book talks about it at length.

@Deleted User @Rils have neither of you heard of the restaurant that refused to serve black people in 1964, and the supreme court ruled using the "commerce clause" that the federal government had the authority to compel a business to not discriminate because it would affect interstate travel?

Could you be more specific?

I gotta look that up. Maybe it was due to it's location

1964 would've been at the tail end of Jim Crow

As a sidebar, I disagree with that assessment, racial discrimination has nothing to do with interstate commerce and shouldn't be under the purview of the commerce clause.

@Deleted User @Rils wait. Seriously you've never heard of this? Am I that old?

I'm indian, sorry

I haven't heard about this vague event.

I'm 38

I'm 17....