This California case comes about as close to the line as any. The state judge held that the baker did not violate either the CA or US Constitutions since she had an artist's right to decline to prepare a cake for a same sex wedding. Two women requested a cake for their impending nuptials without any special adornments. Nevertheless, the judge held, the baker had the legal right to refuse because she would have known while she was preparing the cake that it would be used to celebrate an event she found for religious reasons to be abhorrent.

I think this decision is wrong but it's close. Identical reasoning would justify a refusal to bake for a mixed wedding or an African-American couple. This makes me even more uncomfortable defending the decision. Still, I don't want the government to force people to do work that they don't wish to do.

In the end, I think the judge got it wrong because the specific service sought by the gay couple is no different than service that the baker apparently provides for straight weddings. Thus, the absence of a request for a same sex decoration makes the difference for me.

Ultimately, this decision if upheld could be cited by racist restaurant managers or homophobic store clerks as permitting them to deny service to African American patrons or gay customers. I'd have ruled in favor of the couple.