"Free to discriminate? I don't think so. If you don't want to serve the public at large, don't go into business."
==============
He did not - did not - discriminate against the gay guy. He did - did - discriminate against an "artistic work of edible art" he was asked to "utilize his artistic talents" to "create."
-
The gay guy had the right to go in and buy anything off the shelves he wanted to buy. But does "everyone" (gay, Nazi, KKK, pro-choice, pro-life, etc) have "the right" to force any "artist" to decorate a cake, compose a song, design a web page, paint a painting, or anything else that the "artist" finds "offensive" because the "artist" is, for example, a vegan?
-
The question SCOTUS may answer is "Did he discriminate against the 'customer'?" (No) But "Did he discriminate against an 'offensive work of art' that enjoys no protection class status?" (Yes)