Again with the gay activist stuff. From what I read, it was a couple from MA having a reception with friends in Denver. Not saying you're wrong, but what evidence is there that this was gay activists trying to provoke something? And not just a gay couple simply wanting a cake with no ulterior motive than having a cake at the reception?
The fact that the baker was bombarded with harassment and prosecuted. That isn't what normal regular people do over such a trivial thing, they leave a negative review and go buy a cake elsewhere. This was orchestrated and planned and that fact that there seem to be so many of these gay-cake cases coming up reinforces it.
And also from what I read, the baker refused to make the cake before even discussing the design. So there apparently was no discussion yet about anything that would make the cake "gay". No groom/groom decoration, no phalluses, no "congratulations john and jim" (or whatever the names were). But you're also saying he would sell them a cake. I'm finding it hard to see the distinction. At that point, that's all they asked for and he refused.
The description makes no sense which makes me think something has been omitted to give a bias view of what happened (the media? surely not ...). You're saying he wouldn't provide a cake that wasn't in any way specific to being for a gay wedding and at the same time was happy to sell them a cake. Again, I think someone has put a spin on things intentionally to try and make it be about them being gay instead of the cake and message.
What would be the difference? What if they just wanted a fancy cake? And then used it for a gay ceremony? You're saying that was OK with him?
Well, it seems like he was happy to sell them a cake, so it wasn't like he was discriminating against them for being gay, just not willing to decorate a cake with something he found objectionable. Again, it's why I think the reporting has deliberately missed some important detail. Don't assume the media is independently reporting the facts, often they are part of the activist for certain causes.
And from what I understand, the couple was already married. So it wasn't for a wedding - that already happened. It was for a reception.
It was so they could target the white christian baker.
The left isn't happy to have people disagree with them. Anyone who does has to be targeted, harassed and put out of business to act as an example against anyone else daring to stand-up for anything.
This is why this case was so important. That kind of behavior shouldn't be allowed and shouldn't be rewarded.