You know what's strange about all this? NO ONE knows how big this civil ceremony was going to be, whether it was even *at* a reception hall (I have attended a number of post-ceremony evens at people's houses, even one in a local park) or ANY other details about this event. NONE.There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue. It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.
Next, the cake is delivered and set up long before any guests arrive, then the baker leaves. They don't go to any wedding/civil union ceremonies nor stay for the reception.
So now you're saying the objection the xtian bakers had was being forced to visit the reception hall to deliver the cake. Does that mean they can never visit that hall again in their life? Is it filled with gay cooties now?
It could have been a small ceremony with a gathering after, where they had no tiers, a moderate sized cake, planned pick-up...any number of variables
NO
ONE
KNOWS
All we know is, they went in to discuss a cake for the ceremony, and it never went past "it's for two women" -- (not exact phrase, they said the names of the brides) --
That.was.it.
So all this cracky crap about halls, tiers, attending, bla bla bla is just speculation about a dork head who got his figgety ass all tailed up when heard it was a same-sex wedding.
Then proceeded to tell them they were "abominations."
All these other speculations are ridiculous.
IT
DOES
NOT
MATTER
They did not refuse to serve the couple. In fact, they had served them numerous times in the past, and had no problem with them coming back to the shop. All they did was refuse to make a cake for a ceremony they disagreed with.
I see so they did not refuse to bake the cake for them, they just refused to bake the cake for them for the ceremony. Yeah that's different than refusing to bake a cake for them based on discrimination. NO wait, it's not different. I'm confused.