I cant believe the stupidity of this. Of all the things important, forcing someone to bake a cake for you is insignificant to say the least. To litigate this is insane. If someone doesnt want to bake your cake, find someone else who will undoubtedly do it for you- and move on.

Entitlement is a curse on our country. Gays are entitled, blacks are entitled, women are entitled. And men are disparaged as stupid and insensitive cowards- even in TV commercials.

This country is definitely going down the drain quickly.

Not sure this protects private ownership at all. This decision is based on the First Amendment, just protecting religion.

beg to differ...this ruling did not affirm an individual businessman's right to privacy...it was about the Colorado Civil Rights Commission being discriminatory...

What didn't help the litigants' case was the fact that the baker often served gay customers. That proved he didn't discriminate against gays, just the idea of gay marriage. I would bet that if a liberal baker served gun owners, but refused to make a cake celebrating the opening of hunting season, a case could be made that he wasn't discriminating against 2nd amendment rights, but against an act he didn't approve of (killing animals for sport) being perfectly legal. No religion involved in that case, but the principle is the same.

The decision is pretty narrow. They seem to have been mostly persuaded by the fact that the commission was explicitly hostile toward religion and found it violated the "Free exercise" clause of the first amendment. Most people ignore that clause when declaring separation of church and state.

While I agree with the concept that the market, not government, should deal with business discrimination, this will probably not move the "dial" very far in that direction.

Still,a win is a win.

Exactly. In fact, that is what is wrong with the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Though it was long overdue in striking down state laws authorizing segregation in publicly-owned facilities (courthouses, public schools, etc.), it went wrong in violating private owners' rights to make the rules on their own property. (The way to fight that sort of bigotry is by boycotts, etc.) And that part should be repealed. Just because somebody works with the public does not mean his business is owned by the public. (I don't recall that the Supreme Court has ever ruled on that issue. As to its Constitutionality, it might be somewhat addressed by the "taking's" clause in the Constitution). There is also the matter of Amendment #13, regarding "involuntary servitude".

While many are hailing the decision, I think it to be premature. The case's only true outcome was to declare the Colorado Commission to be in gross violation of any standard of fair application of the law. It did not rule on the legality of the law in the first place, which is what remains to be decided and a future decision is very unlikely to be a 7-2 verdict.

Not a win at all! This gay couple shopped for a baker they knew would refuse just so they could sue and get the publicity. The shop owner might have won the battle but he surely lost the war that was very costly to fight. Too bad we don't have the rule "Loser Pays" the legal fees.
Go in to a Muslim owned T shirt shop and order 100 shirts with the Ten Commandments printed on them and see how that goes.

So does this mean that we can no longer use legal force to compel a Muslim owned print shop to make a dozen copies of the profit Mohammad?

"Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented."
These two biased jurists continue to make statist anti-freedom rulings as they have for decades.

I support the baker's right to discriminate (and my right to have nothing to do with companies that discriminate), but the case was about the procedure, not the merits of the law. The media, esp in headlines, imply that the court was responding to the merits of the case, i.e. the baker's right to choose his customers. My understanding is the ruling did not take that into account. It was a ruling on unrelated procedural issues being appealed.