What do we do when the rights of two people are in conflict? Whose side do we choose? Do we force one or the other to completely cave? Do we choose based on our own values and preferences with no consideration for others?
That's a false choice and is just as intolerant as anything either side claims to be against.
It's one thing to flat out refuse any service. It's quite another to refuse to join your celebration or make a statement that goes against your conscience.
SCOTUS made the right call and for a valid reason (a biased commission in CO) but did not touch the 1A issues. The 1A isn't just a collection of disjointed rights. Although not mentioned, the broader context of the 1A is the freedom of conscience. It states that you have a right to express your conscience in a meaningful way of your choosing. Protests, the press, speech, religion are all just avenues of expression of the inner conscience and government is prohibited from restraining those expressions.
On the other side, the 14A states that Congress may make law to ensure equal protection of rights and privileges. Congress chose to do this in the CRA of 1964 and through subsequent amendments of that law. Additionally, nothing prevents a state from going further in those protections than Congress has decided to go. Congress has not given sexual orientation protected status but CO did.
The problem CO has was that it failed to even consider religious freedom - or rather that it did and summarily dismissed it without proper consideration.
So again, back to conflicting rights.
Sometimes the best solution is compromise, but few seem willing to do that on either side. Compromise is seen as a loss and only total victory over "the others" will be tolerated. There is no respect for others, their rights, their conscience - Only intolerance and vengeance for those who dare to express their own conscience.
So we will either go to war - figurative or literal - over this or we will compromise.
It seems reasonable that refusal of any service goes against the spirit (and in some places the letter) of the law (and against the spirit of America itself, IMHO).
However, forcing another to violate his conscience also goes against the spirit (and everywhere the letter) of the law (and against the spirit of America itself, IMHO).
So the compromise would be to balance the conflicting rights as best we can. IMHO that means not allowing outright refusal of any and all services while not forcing anyone to make expressions or participate in actions that violate their conscience.
Reasonable people can agree that taking a cake off the shelf and selling it to anyone would not violate the reasonable conscience.
Reasonable people can agree that making an expression or joining in certain actions very well may violate a reasonable person's conscience.
So there is the line of compromise.
No one loses. No one wins, but really everyone wins.
And government does not pick whose inalienable rights fall by the wayside. Government upholds the rights of everyone.
In a completely rational world, CA's view wins. We don't live in that world so compromise is necessary to protect the rights of minorities, whether that minority is defined by sexual orientation or by religious views (or other protected statuses).
We as a nation have always attempted (whether truly or by lip service) to protect the rights of dissenters and conscientious objectors. Do we really want to throw that away?
I don't agree with the baker's stance, but I agree with his right to take a different stance than me since no one will be physically harmed by his actions/inactions. There will always be someone willing to make a decorated cake and if you can't hire someone you can make it yourself or buy one off the shelf and decorate it to your liking.
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated (or destroyed) should not be the America we strive toward.
