I did. Hence what I posted. Them being gay wasn't the problem. What he had a problem with was what they requested him to express visually on the cake. If a straight person or anyone else had asked him to do a cake like that, he would have refused to do it regardless of what their actual orientation was.

Yes. Politics. But they could have easily based it on her personally. The knowledge of her came as a result of her being in politics. Doesn't mean their decision is based on politics specifically. It's based on her as a person.

Uh, you should read the case since it doesn't mention any design specifics. He denied them when he found out that it was going to be used for a gay wedding and he saw it as an endorsement.

Ok. It wasn't.

If you make decisions on how you treat someone based on their political actions, then it is based on politics specifically. It's not rocket science, Kiii.

Then yes, politics had involvement. I'm not disagreeing in this particular case. But that doesn't mean if someone gets refused service and they just happen to be in politics, I don't agree that politics always has a part in it.

That would be a great point if it addressed anything that was said here.

I'm at a loss then. I at least said my point.

I will say that I don't entirely disagree that politics could have had an impact on the decision, but my perspective is that it wasnt. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was reported that politics had a play in their decision. So Frown, I do understand what you're getting at.

Citing First Amendment, Supreme Court Rules That False Advertising Is Protected Speech

I'm fine with not requiring the notice of other services though tbf.