Colorado Baker Wins

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, you're WAY overstating that point.

Racism has been justified on religious grounds for hundreds of years:

 

 

 

And race been struck down as grounds for discrimination I believe.  I don't know of any modern SCOTUS decisions that have supported race as a religious issue. Do you ? 

This was a religious issue. The SCOTUS decision bears this out.

[wildcat09 29226]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

But so too would be compelling a person to act contrary to his bona fide religious beliefs.  And since we're abusing somebody's rights, I'm going to abuse in the direction that causes the least harm.

I think both parties were stupid assholes in this case, but I think choosing the direction that causes the least harm clearly requires siding the gay buyers, not the bakers. Since our courts can't question the legitimacy or sincerity of someone's claimed religious beliefs, permitting exceptions from religiously neutral and generally applicable laws based on religious beliefs is one hell of a slippery slope. 

[Equinox 95]

Ima wait til Roseanne and Samantha Bee weigh in on this.

[Chad Fuck 17557]

3 minutes ago, Equinox said:

Ima wait til Roseanne and Samantha Bee weigh in on this.

Hang on, hang on.  Gotta see what Junior has to say about it.

 

Responses are gold.

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Chad Fuck

[softlynow 1783]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think both parties were stupid assholes in this case, but I think choosing the direction that causes the least harm clearly requires siding the gay buyers, not the bakers. Since our courts can't question the legitimacy or sincerity of someone's claimed religious beliefs, permitting exceptions from religiously neutral and generally applicable laws based on religious beliefs is one hell of a slippery slope. 

Yep. See, for example, Employment Division v. Smith.

[Mole 4320]

From the title, I thought this was a horse racing thread.

[phdhorn 6224]

Just now, Mole said:

From the title, I thought this was a horse racing thread.

Or hotheaded OU quarterback traded to Denver.

I don't think the ramifications of this case will be really all that significant, and would say it even with a decision the other way.

[Ghost of LL 15477]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think both parties were stupid assholes in this case, but I think choosing the direction that causes the least harm clearly requires siding the gay buyers, not the bakers. Since our courts can't question the legitimacy or sincerity of someone's claimed religious beliefs, permitting exceptions from religiously neutral and generally applicable laws based on religious beliefs is one hell of a slippery slope. 

The fact-finder can absolutely determine that the alleged religious belief is not "bona fide."  I've won an employment discrimination jury trial on that exact basis.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

I really see both sides of this situation.  A business owner should have some right to refuse customers and can't be forced to go against their religion.   Where this struggles is when the "bona fide"  religious belief goes against someone's civil rights.    However should someone face discrimination because their want a cake, go into a restaurant, attend a movie, etc?    In larger cities, the gay couple can find alternatives but not everyone lives in a big city.

Side note:  I know this baker thinks his cakes are art and a key component of the religious marriage ceremony.  I think he baked an expensive cake that people are going to eat.   I never understood his argument that somehow his cake endorses a marriage.  

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

10 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Hang on, hang on.  Gotta see what Junior has to say about it.

 

Responses are gold.

 

I like “at least 2 liberal justices had to have agreed” that he deduced from the 7-2 number.  Which means his “reading about” the case didn’t go so far as opining the opinion to see how the justices ruled. 

[Dahobbs 17437]

24 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

My "rules" apply to anyone.  It applies to any type of business and any type of customer:

1.If the business is supplying a standard product to the general public it must supply it to all, unless there is some overriding government dictate (e.g. national security concern for selling supercomputers).

2. If the business is providing a custom product (e.g. defending a business in a patent lawsuit) then they are totally free to decide to whom they provide their service.

A $2000 cake to a gay wedding is governed by rule #2.  Flowers to a gay wedding is governed by rule #1.  The "gay wedding part doesn't have shit to do with deciding which rule applies.  Nor does race, religion, national origin or favored football team.

 

 

Explain this "rule." How are you determining standard product/services versus custom product/services? Since you can get "your way" at Burger King, does that mean they are providing custom services? I'm also unclear how this rule has anything whatsoever to do with capitalism, but maybe you aren't making that argument. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I really see both sides of this situation.  A business owner should have some right to refuse customers and can't be forced to go against their religion.   Where this struggles is when the "bona fide"  religious belief goes against someone's civil rights.    However should someone face discrimination because their want a cake, go into a restaurant, attend a movie, etc?    In larger cities, the gay couple can find alternatives but not everyone lives in a big city.

Side note:  I know this baker thinks his cakes are art and a key component of the religious marriage ceremony.  I think he baked an expensive cake that people are going to eat.   I never understood his argument that somehow his cake endorses a marriage.  

 

While I respect peoples religious rights I believe once you're operating in the public arena you can't refuse service for race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. The baker was stupid for not being able to brush them off in a diplomatic way that wouldn't cause a scene, and the gay couple were being well totally gay, and not in a good way.

[Dahobbs 17437]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I really see both sides of this situation.  A business owner should have some right to refuse customers and can't be forced to go against their religion.  

 

Why? How does the customer who you provide services to impact your religious beliefs? I just don't see the connection. I guess your religious belief could be that gay people shouldn't have cake at all? 

[Armybrat 40730]

So, aggy can't demand HEB bake him a ewe vag cake for his wedding?

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

So, does the enforce Dana Rohrabacher's belief that you shouldn't sell houses to gay people?  If mean, if your religion allows it, now you can refuse to rent and/or sell housing to gays, right?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

13 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

So, aggy can't demand HEB bake him a ewe vag cake for his wedding?

Not if the baker is a vegetarian.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? How does the customer who you provide services to impact your religious beliefs? I just don't see the connection. I guess your religious belief could be that gay people shouldn't have cake at all? 

Personally I don't think providing a cake is breaking any religious belief.  It's a cake.    However if I'm a baker does that mean I have to make a cake for any event or decorate it in whatever the customer wants?   I can't refuse for any reason?     

To be clear, I think this baker is delusional about the the purpose of his cake, and I hope no one gives him any future business. 

EDIT:  Isn't it a bit simplistic to say the baker won this case, other than the Colorado board treated him unfairly?  I don't believe SCOTUS ruled that bakers can now discriminate against someone.   

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The baker of our wedding cake had to come to the wedding and set it up. That seems quite different than selling something off the rack.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Explain this "rule." How are you determining standard product/services versus custom product/services? Since you can get "your way" at Burger King, does that mean they are providing custom services? I'm also unclear how this rule has anything whatsoever to do with capitalism, but maybe you aren't making that argument. 

It's not a perfect definition, or as a mathematician would say " a well defined set".  But roughly speaking I'd ask whether two different people would provide a fundamentally different products at fundamentally different prices.

 

I think two master bakers would provide different $2,000 wedding cakes, two different patent lawyers would provide two different defenses, and two different artists would provide two different portraits.  But two different girls in the WalMart bake shop would provide essentially the same "custom" $30 birthday cake, two different kids at Burger King would provide the essentially same burger done your way, and two different rooms at the Holiday Inn Express are essentially the same.  But an artist doing $5 cartoons of you at the fair would fall under rule #1 even though two different cartoonists would provide a different product.  They're all five minutes work for five bucks.  I see that as a standard product.  I have a pretty high bar for "custom".  I haven't thought it through but I think I have a pretty clear sense of whether the product is "custom". 

The $2,000 wedding cake isn't a standard product at a standard price.  It's got a lot of art and a lot of variable pricing.  And the skill and vision of the baker is important.  The $30 birthday cake at WalMart is $30 and it doesn't matter much if Sue or Jill does the icing.

I think we should demand that the guy providing the assembly line service provide it to all but the guy doing art gets to do what he wants.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Is it evil that I never could work up much concern over this?

We all should be able to expect tolerance and display towards all. I think the bakery is run by bigots and they triggered the lawsuit, but denial of a cake is a long way from being forced to the back of the bus or poll tests.

From my very limited knowledge of the case, it appears the Supreme Court saw this individual case similarly. Okay, they're assholes that don't want to bake a cake due to their own intolerance of homosexuals; maybe there's room for tolerance of idiocy in specific cases.

Edit: I see some wiser persons have pre-empted my own quaint take on this. Thanks to them for illumination.

This is pretty much my take on this. 

['stache 21764]

The line between artistic expression and public offerings is going to be the deciding point in these cases.  His argument is that his cakes are "artistic expression" and the state can't compel him to make a cake he doesn't want.  Sort of like an artist can't be forced to make a painting he doesn't want to make, and in my opinion that would go beyond free exercise.   I think it's stupid to consider a custom cake as "artistic expression" but fine, whatever.  But it'll be funny to see a bunch of repressed "christians" try to fit within the cake case. 

Flower makers:  "My grouping of flowers is artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Caterer:  "My mass produced chicken is artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Limo companies:  "Our cars and how our drivers drive is artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Party rental company:  "Our table cloths have frillys and are artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Gay people are gay.  Fucking get over it already.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

Is cake even in the Bible?

For the Canecutter wedding we didn't have no damn fool cake. We had chunks of meat on sticks, and a hell of a lot of it. And wine. And more wine. And more wine than that. I read about the Wedding of Cana, I don't need to be told twice.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

The line between artistic expression and public offerings is going to be the deciding point in these cases.  His argument is that his cakes are "artistic expression" and the state can't compel him to make a cake he doesn't want.  Sort of like an artist can't be forced to make a painting he doesn't want to make, and in my opinion that would go beyond free exercise.   I think it's stupid to consider a custom cake as "artistic expression" but fine, whatever.  But it'll be funny to see a bunch of repressed "christians" try to fit within the cake case. 

Flower makers:  "My grouping of flowers is artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Caterer:  "My mass produced chicken is artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Limo companies:  "Our cars and how our drivers drive is artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Party rental company:  "Our table cloths have frillys and are artistic expression.  No gays allowed."

Gay people are gay.  Fucking get over it already.

Any act of the creative process is art. Flower arrangements, cake baking, room decoration are all artistic endeavors. That's not any endorsement of people saying you can;t force me to create art.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Can a band turn down playing a gay wedding based on their religious beliefs?  Or can they be compelled to attend and play the music under penalty of fine/jailing?

What about the photographer?

Or wedding coordinator?

Or minister?

[Brisketexan 104561]

15 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

It's not a perfect definition, or as a mathematician would say " a well defined set".  But roughly speaking I'd ask whether two different people would provide a fundamentally different products at fundamentally different prices.

 

I think two master bakers would provide different $2,000 wedding cakes, two different patent lawyers would provide two different defenses, and two different artists would provide two different portraits.  But two different girls in the WalMart bake shop would provide essentially the same "custom" $30 birthday cake, two different kids at Burger King would provide the essentially same burger done your way, and two different rooms at the Holiday Inn Express are essentially the same.  But an artist doing $5 cartoons of you at the fair would fall under rule #1 even though two different cartoonists would provide a different product.  They're all five minutes work for five bucks.  I see that as a standard product.  I have a pretty high bar for "custom".  I haven't thought it through but I think I have a pretty clear sense of whether the product is "custom". 

The $2,000 wedding cake isn't a standard product at a standard price.  It's got a lot of art and a lot of variable pricing.  And the skill and vision of the baker is important.  The $30 birthday cake at WalMart is $30 and it doesn't matter much if Sue or Jill does the icing.

I think we should demand that the guy providing the assembly line service provide it to all but the guy doing art gets to do what he wants.

And I  think that's generally where the law will shake out, when all is said and done.

It will be a fact-specific inquiry in each case, as to whether it's a "unique expression" being sold, or a "standard product" being sold.  I mean, EVERYTHING that's not made on an assembly line is a "unique expression" -- "hold the onions" on my burger is a unique expression.  Asking the chef to sub mozarella for provolone on my chicken parm is a unique expression (and certainly, higher-end customized menus are).

I would suspect that the test will require consideration of whether the product includes truly unique expressions, as opposed to simply a unique permutation of standard expressions.  For example, the written MESSAGE on a cake ("happy butt-sex day!") can be unique...or it can be standard ("happy birthday!").  But message is definitely a way that a cake can be a unique expression.  Whereas standard decorating flair -- fluting, little flowers, etc. -- which are offered on a variety of cakes, and you just pick a combo that may or may not be unique -- is just a variation on the standard.

The end result should look generally like what Tahoe describes -- if Walmart, or even a "custom" baker, offers a general "white cake with pink and yellow flowers, great for weddings!", that's gotta be sold to everyone, for everything.  If they offer written messages, or truly artistic customization ("make the top look like my boyfriend's face!"), then the provider has discretion of whether or not to sell it to a purchaser.

EDIT:

Oh, and I echo the thoughts of some folks here who represent differing ends of the spectrum: for fuck's sake, don't pick fights over stupid shit like this.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Can a band turn down playing a gay wedding based on their religious beliefs?  Or can they be compelled to attend and play the music under penalty of fine/jailing?

What about the photographer?

Or wedding coordinator?

Or minister?

The slippery slope.  No, in my personal opinion, you cannot discriminate in the public arena. 

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Can a band turn down playing a gay wedding based on their religious beliefs?  Or can they be compelled to attend and play the music under penalty of fine/jailing?

What about the photographer?

Or wedding coordinator?

Or minister?

Should you be able to refuse to rent to a gay couple?

[Neonmoon 38127]

so if I have a religion that views another race as a sin, I can refuse service to that race based on religious views?

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Neonmoon

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

so if I have a religion that views another race as a sin, I can refuse service to that reace based on religious views?

a religion that views the very existence of another race as a sin?  yeah, you can totally discriminate on that basis.  get to it and report back.

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

We've always ruled that companies like Hobby Lobby can claim religious exemption even though they're not religious companies.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

so if I have a religion that views another race as a sin, I can refuse service to that race based on religious views?

 

Sure! But if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your bank account to waste.

['stache 21764]

And I  think that's generally where the law will shake out, when all is said and done.
It will be a fact-specific inquiry in each case, as to whether it's a "unique expression" being sold, or a "standard product" being sold.  I mean, EVERYTHING that's not made on an assembly line is a "unique expression" -- "hold the onions" on my burger is a unique expression.  Asking the chef to sub mozarella for provolone on my chicken parm is a unique expression (and certainly, higher-end customized menus are).
I would suspect that the test will require consideration of whether the product includes truly unique expressions, as opposed to simply a unique permutation of standard expressions.  For example, the written MESSAGE on a cake ("happy butt-sex day!") can be unique...or it can be standard ("happy birthday!").  But message is definitely a way that a cake can be a unique expression.  Whereas standard decorating flair -- fluting, little flowers, etc. -- which are offered on a variety of cakes, and you just pick a combo that may or may not be unique -- is just a variation on the standard.
The end result should look generally like what Tahoe describes -- if Walmart, or even a "custom" baker, offers a general "white cake with pink and yellow flowers, great for weddings!", that's gotta be sold to everyone, for everything.  If they offer written messages, or truly artistic customization ("make the top look like my boyfriend's face!"), then the provider has discretion of whether or not to sell it to a purchaser.

Similar to what I said, and I’m looking forward to seeing some absurd arguments. It won’t be Walmart’s, it’ll be small shops and local chains.

“My martini shaking skills are expression, I can’t serve gays cause religion.”

“My tater tot toppings are customized for each customer, it’s my expression, no gays cause religion.”

“My shop stacks soda cans to look like Jesus, expression, no gays.”

[tantric superman 4667]

Whatever, you aren't balancing anything or protecting the capitalist system, so just say what you mean.  You are creating a rule that allows people who want to benefit from our market system to be able to discriminate on religious grounds.  You appear to be carving out some exception for "non-standard" products which doesn't seem to have any relationship to anything other than your own system of logic, but that's okay. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

We've always ruled that companies like Hobby Lobby can claim religious exemption even though they're not religious companies.

Do you need to be religious to be opposed to abortion ?  

[TahoeHorn 107]

Just now, 'stache said:

Similar to what I said, and I’m looking forward to seeing some absurd arguments. It won’t be Walmart’s, it’ll be small shops and local chains.

“My martini shaking skills are expression, I can’t serve gays cause religion.”

“My tater tot toppings are customized for each customer, it’s my expression, no gays cause religion.”

“My shop stacks soda cans to look like Jesus, expression, no gays.”
 

And they'll lose.  I don't think the concept is that tough.

[Dahobbs 17437]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And I  think that's generally where the law will shake out, when all is said and done.

It will be a fact-specific inquiry in each case, as to whether it's a "unique expression" being sold, or a "standard product" being sold.  I mean, EVERYTHING that's not made on an assembly line is a "unique expression" -- "hold the onions" on my burger is a unique expression.  Asking the chef to sub mozarella for provolone on my chicken parm is a unique expression (and certainly, higher-end customized menus are).

I would suspect that the test will require consideration of whether the product includes truly unique expressions, as opposed to simply a unique permutation of standard expressions.  For example, the written MESSAGE on a cake ("happy butt-sex day!") can be unique...or it can be standard ("happy birthday!").  But message is definitely a way that a cake can be a unique expression.  Whereas standard decorating flair -- fluting, little flowers, etc. -- which are offered on a variety of cakes, and you just pick a combo that may or may not be unique -- is just a variation on the standard.

The end result should look generally like what Tahoe describes -- if Walmart, or even a "custom" baker, offers a general "white cake with pink and yellow flowers, great for weddings!", that's gotta be sold to everyone, for everything.  If they offer written messages, or truly artistic customization ("make the top look like my boyfriend's face!"), then the provider has discretion of whether or not to sell it to a purchaser.

Maybe, but I really really really don't see the logical connection between providing a service you already provide and religious belief. Why does the customer matter? True artists may be different since I'm not sure they really offer a service to the public. They may do a commissioned piece here and there, but their business is usually making their own art and selling it, not making art for others. I keep going back to this:

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I sort of understand this. I agree that the overall impact to the couple is minor given the presence of other choices. But I don't think that is a sound basis for a constitutional ruling. I also think it is premature to conclude that the baker's rights were being abused in anyway. The baker isn't being asked to be gay, to recognize the validity of gayness, or anything like that. Rather, the baker is being asked to provide the exact same service that has been made available to general public, baking and decorating a cake. I see only one clear violation of rights, that of the gay couple looking utilize a public accommodation. To me, a thornier issue would be if a religious officiant were being asked to preside over a gay wedding. That more clearly implicates two sets of rights. 

 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

If I were a homophobic cake baker (band name), I'd say "sure, I'll do that cake but I'm really slammed so it will be $50K."

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Do you need to be religious to be opposed to abortion ?  

The case wasn't about abortion but OK.....

This is why the Hobby Lobby case was such a horrible idea.  What is "religious expression?"  HL is specifically a for profit company.  They're not a non profit and they're not religious but, thanks to them, you can claim your company reflects your personal religious beliefs but meanwhile you're personally protected from that companies business decisions.  It essentially lets anyone claim religion for anything.  The decision about the baker is just a natural extension of that.  His bakery business is certainly not a non profit or religious business but he gets some of the benefits of being one.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

The case wasn't about abortion but OK.....

This is why the Hobby Lobby case was such a horrible idea.  What is "religious expression?"  HL is specifically a for profit company.  They're not a non profit and they're not religious but, thanks to them, you can claim your company reflects your personal religious beliefs but meanwhile you're personally protected from that companies business decisions.  It essentially lets anyone claim religion for anything.  The decision about the baker is just a natural extension of that.  His bakery business is certainly not a non profit or religious business but he gets some of the benefits of being one.

So it wasn't about abortion or more precisely paying for abortions ?

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So it wasn't about abortion or more precisely paying for abortions ?

It was about birth control.

While they didn't want to spend money on birth control, they were more than enthusiastic about spending millions on pilfered artifacts from Iraq but that was irrelevant to the case.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Aqua Buddha

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

It was about birth control.

My mistake. Birth control is usually a catholic hot button issue, and is most assuredly a religious issue.

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

My mistake. Birth control is usually a catholic hot button issue, and is most assuredly a religious issue.

But Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization.  Much like the baker in this case, they're a for profit business run by religious people.  That's a big difference.

[DanRydell 799]

But so too would be compelling a person to act contrary to his bona fide religious beliefs.  And since we're abusing somebody's rights, I'm going to abuse in the direction that causes the least harm.

I’m not opposed to that balancing test but it’s contrary to existing free exercise law under Employment Division v. Smith.

I also think it’s different, not legally but morally, if it’s a baker in Denver, where hundreds of competitors are happy to serve you rather than say in Lufkin, where you could conceivably be blackballed by the entire town.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

3 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I also think it’s different, not legally but morally, if it’s a baker in Denver, where hundreds of competitors are happy to serve you rather than say in Lufkin, where you could conceivably be blackballed by the entire town.

 

Doesn't this imply that the legal interpretation needs to lean in favor of the consumer as opposed to the business?

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

I’m not opposed to that balancing test but it’s contrary to existing free exercise law under Employment Division v. Smith.

I also think it’s different, not legally but morally, if it’s a baker in Denver, where hundreds of competitors are happy to serve you rather than say in Lufkin, where you could conceivably be blackballed by the entire town.

 

I'm having trouble imagining a gay wedding in Lufkin with a fancy wedding cake.  If the entire town blackballs the baker who comes to the wedding?  Does everybody drive in from Montrose?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

But Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization.  Much like the baker in this case, they're a for profit business run by religious people.  That's a big difference.

I'm not a religious corporation, but if I had strong religious beliefs I would be shielded from providing services based on those beliefs (like the baker was eventually).  You don't have to have a religious banner or Jesus fish on your logo to qualify for religious freedom and expression thereof.

And in the eyes of the law it's not a big difference.   The Supreme court just upheld that very concept.  I agree it should make no difference if you're offering  services to the public however.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If I were a homophobic cake baker (band name), I'd say "sure, I'll do that cake but I'm really slammed so it will be $50K."

I would do it while telling them that their funds will be forwarded directly to Focus on the Family.

[GRHorn 105]

Yawn.

I’ve seen plenty of gay people online that are fine with this. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, GRHorn said:

Yawn.

I’ve seen plenty of gay people online that are fine with this. 

free marketeers.

[Dahobbs 17437]

10 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm not a religious corporation, but if I had strong religious beliefs I would be shielded from providing services based on those beliefs (like the baker was eventually).  You don't have to have a religious banner or Jesus fish on your logo to qualify for religious freedom and expression thereof.

And in the eyes of the law it's not a big difference.   The Supreme court just upheld that very concept.  I agree it should make no difference if you're offering  services to the public however.

1) the baker wasnt shielded from anything

2) the Supreme Court made no substantive ruling. Rather, this is a procedural ruling that the inquiry has to be neutral.