SheWasLvL18
Bluelight Crew
That's a good point and I was chuckling while reading that. Thank you for expanding on your previous post.An Uber/taxi ride doesn't require the same type of "artistic" or personalized participation that baking a cake (ostensibly) would. Refusing to provide something as simple and depersonalized as a taxi ride based on race/gender/sexual orientation absolutely does (and should) fit under the existing anti-discrimination umbrella (although it would be pretty difficult to sue for). This case is about the degree the degree of active, individualized or "artistic" participation one must engage in, in order to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
For an example of a potential ramification of ruling against the cake guy, let us consider this hypothetical: you yourself are a cake guy, and an alt-right dude walks into your store demanding a custom designed cake for a low key Nazi party he is throwing on April 20th. Feeling uncomfortable with this, you decline. You have no problem selling him a cake, but you would rather not participate in designing a cake for a guy celebrating Hitler's birthday. He then sues you for discriminating on the basis of his political beliefs (which are low key Nazi, but as far as public record is concerned, he is simply right-wing). While it wouldn't be as strong of a case as the gay couple had, it would be much stronger as a result of the precedents set by ruling in the gay couple's favor than it would have been had they ruled in the cake guy's favor.
While this may seem a far from perfect example, all you really need is one Trump appointed curcuit court judge looking to cuck the libs with their own legal victories to really get this precedent snowball rolling downhill.