I have been thinking a lot about this and have come to a realization, that this case came down to
status versus
action. If the gay couple had come in and said, "We would like you to bake a cake for my nephew's birthday," the bakers would have baked it without questions.
It appears to me that the baker's did not object to the gay couple because they were gay, but because the customers were asking the baker to endorse homosexual conduct.
I realize in the post-Sexual Revolution America, and the definition of "good" is, in many minds, "
whatever feels good." The objection the bakers had, however, was not to homosexuals (the bakers would probably admit that all are sinners, themselves included) but
homosexual conduct. Many would argue that engaging in homosexual conduct is what homosexuals do. They were born that way, it is their nature, so it is closed-minded and bigoted to object. But the objection, (speaking for the bakers here, I do not know if they advanced this argument), was not to homosexuals
per se, but to endorsement of the conduct and the only way the bakers knew of the conduct was through the medium of a
weddingcake (it being a reasonable implication that the married couple is, with the social sanction of marriage, going to then engage in homosexual conduct. The cake was part of that social sanction). The couple wanted the bakers to take part in the endorsement, and the bakers, holding religious convictions, felt they could not do that. This declining to endorse is one of fairly long societal standing.
I realize that his will change exactly zero minds on the subject and I do not type this out of hatred for anybody. It just occurred to me as I thought about the issue this week or so.