I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The baker is refusing to provide service because it would be serving a destructive political and social agenda.
See, if two heterosexual men ordered a wedding cake from the bakery, because they were getting married – mind you that nothing today prevents them from getting married where SSM is legal – and the bakery refused, could they sue the bakery for sexual orientation discrimination? What sexual orientation would that be?
That’s the crux of the matter. There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristic), thus legislation that equates it to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root.
One more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a joke and must be scrapped.
Updated Aug 23, 2013
Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.