The Supreme Court decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case clarifies exactly nothing — maybe the ruling would have stood if the review had not disparaged the baker’s religious beliefs. I’m not sure I’d want a baker who hates me (or something I do) to bake me a cake — too many ways to accidentially ruin a cake. Same with the photographer — why risk accidental overexposure or data loss destroying your wedding photos?
But I can see being offended when someone refuses you service based on your sexual orientation (or religion, or ethnicity, or …). I had a whole host of medical problems — eventually learned that my body does not process sugars/carbohydrates well and simply limiting sugars and simple carbohydrates eliminated most of these problems. But a decade before that discovery, the only thing that sorted amenorrhea and fibromyalgia-like symptoms was hormonal birth control pills. My insurance copay was the same amount regardless of where I purchased medication, so I used a small, privately owned pharmacy in a boutique part of town. Until my state passed a law that permitted pharmacists to refuse to distribute anything that contravened their religious beliefs. Shortly thereafter, I got lectured about my sinful promiscuity instead of picking up my prescription. I’m sure there was some way to get the pills from that pharmacy, but frankly I was insulted and more than a little embarrassed. Not that it was the least bit of their business, but I was absolutely celibate. Just didn’t enjoy being chronically exhausted and in pain. Wasn’t worth arguing about, I transferred my prescription to a chain that wasn’t staffed by people who want to pass judgement on my medical prescriptions.
Thinking back to that embarrassment, I hope these anti-discrimination laws get tested by a case where the local officials don’t editorialize — just state the action violates the law and be done with it.