Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[bripat9643]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

 

[Skylar]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

That's quite a list. Just for grins, what the hell did it include according to your source?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

That's quite a list. Just for grins, what the hell did it include according to your source?

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."​

 

[Skylar]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

 

[Skylar]

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

That's quite a list. Just for grins, what the hell did it include according to your source?

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."​

These are state laws. Now federal laws. Making any reference to the federal commerce clause irrelevant.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

That's quite a list. Just for grins, what the hell did it include according to your source?

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."​

So, in the opinion of this guy, Commerce is only the sale of one of these from Seattle to a bored married woman with two teenagers in Miami?

This, BTW, is the Easter Bunny that comes more than once a year. Happy Good Friday, but not for Jesus.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

It only includes transaction that cross state lines. The baker and the Pizzaria don't fit the bill.

 

[bripat9643]

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

That's quite a list. Just for grins, what the hell did it include according to your source?

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."​

These are state laws. Now federal laws. Making any reference to the federal commerce clause irrelevant.

You've been using the commerce clause to justify the PA laws, numskull.

 

[Skylar]

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

It only includes transaction that cross state lines. The baker and the Pizzaria don't fit the bill.

For the federal interstate commerce clause. Which is irrelevant to this discussion. As PA laws are State laws, involving INTRAstate commerce.

You've confused inter state and intra state, despite the two terms being exact opposites.

Any reference to the federal commerce clause is irrrelevant ignorance. It doesn't apply to State PA laws. Or limit state authority over the regulation of intrastate commerce in anyway.

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

That's quite a list. Just for grins, what the hell did it include according to your source?

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."​

These are state laws. Now federal laws. Making any reference to the federal commerce clause irrelevant.

You've been using the commerce clause to justify the PA laws, numskull.

Read again. I've specifically cited the State's possession of intrastate commerce authority.

Sigh......you're really not following the conversation, are you?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

Nope.

So businesses have no right to refuse service to a potential customer based on their beliefs, except when those beliefs are the same as yours? Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage then afford a Muslim owned business the right not to serve pork because they have a deep moral conviction that eating pigs is a sin? Don't get me twisted here either. I totally understand the argument that business owners have no right to freedom of association. I don't agree with it but I can respect it. I just can't respect hypocrisy.

You're confusing a number of issues here, along with being factually wrong.

Business owners in jurisdictions whose public accommodations laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation are not being 'forced' to do anything, where such public accommodations laws in no way 'violate' religious liberty because their intent is regulatory, not to interfere with religious practice.

These laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional because they're predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, having nothing to do with 'freedom of association.'

And a Muslim owned business cannot be 'compelled' to sell pork because he doesn't sell pork in the first place, where refusing to sell pork based on religious belief doesn't violate public accommodations laws because such a service is not part of the normal course of a Muslim's business.

Business owners are subject to the same laws as everyone else, and they must obey the law as must everyone else – claiming a 'religious exemption' is not justification to ignore or violate a just and proper law.

 

[lake avenue]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The best, most organic way to reduce or minimize discrimination is to change hearts and open minds.

Intimidation and punishment are nothing more than band aids that ultimately increase the animosity.

But the narcissists who want to intimidate and punish aren't really trying to make things any better.

.

 

[Clementine]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Businesses are technically private. The left bitches about everything from dress codes to the opinion of owners. Chic fil a never said they'd refuse service to anyone, but came out for traditional values and that was enough to send the left into a tailspin. No one is allowed to hold differing views or there is a price to pay. There are blacks who will not allow whites into meetings to discuss race issues so no equal treatment there. There are functions that exclude whites, like the BET awards. There are caucuses in Washington that exist to favor groups and exclude others. Equality in employment means no more affirmative action. Equality in education means no more UN college fund.

What do you mean by social settings?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

It only includes transaction that cross state lines. The baker and the Pizzaria don't fit the bill.

Incorrect.

Congress is authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate both local markets and all other interrelated markets. See Wickardv. Filburn (1942), Gonzalesv. Raich (2005)

Both intrastate and interstate commerce are subject to Federal regulation, having nothing to do with the 'crossing of state lines,' including Federal public accommodations laws authorized by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

In addition, Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes state and local governments to regulate markets, including enacting public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Businesses are technically private. The left bitches about everything from dress codes to the opinion of owners. Chic fil a never said they'd refuse service to anyone, but came out for traditional values and that was enough to send the left into a tailspin. No one is allowed to hold differing views or there is a price to pay. There are blacks who will not allow whites into meetings to discuss race issues so no equal treatment there. There are functions that exclude whites, like the BET awards. There are caucuses in Washington that exist to favor groups and exclude others. Equality in employment means no more affirmative action. Equality in education means no more UN college fund.

What do you mean by social settings?

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.

You're making inane partisan references to all manner of issues having nothing to do with each other, and nothing to do with the issue being addressed.

Commerce Clause jurisprudence, public accommodations laws, and the issue of discrimination in the private sector has nothing to do with 'the left.'

 

[Ravi]

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

They did not deny anything at all to gays. They chose not to provide a product that was against their moral convictions. It had nothing to do with the gays personally. It had everything to do with the baker's choice not to participate in something the baker could not condone.

If it was gay bakers not wanting to participate in a Westboro Baptist wedding and refusing to bake a wedding cake for it, I would be 100% on the side of the gay bakers.

They weren't asked to provide a gay themed cake, just a cake.