If the United States continues to oppress and repress its legal citizens through imposing man-made social constructs intent on limiting freedoms, is it any wonder that people will push, fight, routinely?

There are two counter perspectives I can readily see:

1.  The baker and Others argue they should not have to allow their minds to contain "unholy" concepts leading to actions while profiting in the public marketplace.

2.  Colorado Appeals Court takes stock of the change in state and federal laws in 2014 and 2015 which sanctioned same-sex marriage; by the time of the court's decision, same-sex marriage became a valid, legal, form of marriage. Consequently, such marriage in inline with the Appeals Court's judgement in favor of the couple.

Same sex marriage is legal.  Great. 

But, the baker "should" have every right to say "no".

It is just like that woman who was pregnant with twins and goes into a restaurant and is refused service because of her attire being......crock top and skirt pulled down under her stomach.  And, there she was in all her glory showing off a bare greatly enlarged stomach.

Was she discriminated against?  She says so.    No one should have been subjected to that sight while dining.

Hi magnoliaave,

A category mistake: A poor fashion statement and bad taste | public accommodation - discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The state of Colorado expects its business owners to obey state and federal laws against ldiscrimination.

Regardless of what the Justice Department does or how this baker feels about his religious beliefs, this case is really a non-starter. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue, taking it away from the states and ruled that marriage equality is a "right". The implications are enormous. The SCOTUS does not want to revisit the issue or any of the extenuating circumstances. Believers in traditional marriage and religious organizations & their congregations will now be called "bigots" regardless of their concerns.

Vic Eldred, this is precisely why the Trump Administration is weighing in on this. It is a Trump Administration attack on a(nother) Obama Administration policy. Furthermore, it is the DOJ taking the new Justice, Neil Gorsuch, out on a "test-run." More conservative cases waiting in the que.

It is a Trump Administration attack on a(nother) Obama Administration policy.

 I'm not sure about that. You may remember that Obama gradually changed his position on this issue and sided with the Court. Somewhere in the middle I think Obama had it right - when he transitioned to the view that redefining marriage should be done for simple human empathy. Eventually, he went all the way to a "right" and there are a few problems with that which may take us off topic a bit.

As I have said the DOJ loses this one for the reasons I have stated. The motives of that agency may be more social than political.

 T here are a few problems with that which may take us off topic a bit.
_________________________________________________________

By all means, make your point. I want to follow your thinking. Right now, I am thinking the Obama Administration had DOJ put forward court documents in 2013 for approval of Same Sex Marriage:

Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court

Thursday Feb 28, 2013 10:54 AM

 But after abortion became forced upon all the states laws were enacted to protect those who had religious objections to being involved in them.  There are numerous conscience clauses protecting one from being forced into participating in one in any way and from prescribing medication that violated conscience.  No one accuses those using these protections of discrimination.  The courts have expanded these protections to cover birth control in relation to Obamacare.  The Chief Justice did say after the gay marriage ruling that the court would have to revisit the issue in regard to conscience clauses for those impacted by the decision.  

The Chief Justice did say after the gay marriage ruling that the court would have to revisit the issue in regard to conscience clauses for those impacted by the decision.

I could use that reference to the Chief Justice's words right now.

 In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns.  “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for 28 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Roberts noted that the question of tax-exempt status of religious institutions could become an issue.

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued the following on religious liberty in his dissent:

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

He also wrote the following on religious liberty.

“Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/26/here-are-the-key-excerpts-on-religious-liberty-from-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-gay-marriage/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.6ff0847911d9

 Thank you, 'Jefferson. I will reply shortly to this posting.

“Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

 This says what about "good and decent people" who are heartless and dry to disallow other people the experiences of love, fellowship, and prosperity they wish for themselves? Go ahead define that good, decent group for me, 'Jefferson!

In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well.

 There is Justice C. Thomas seeing a problem, but not doing any of the hard-work to improve the human condition. I almost resist commenting on his "message" because he meets none of my hopes and expectations no matter how small or great as a Justice.

It is good for him that he is a twenty-century Justice, because considering his conservatively held precepts being born black sooner there is high probability he would have to deny himself a seat on the high court!

There are numerous conscience clauses protecting one from being forced into participating in one in any way and from prescribing medication that violated conscience. No one accuses those using these protections of discrimination.

To be clear, Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop violated this couple's civil rights. He outright told the couple they could buy anything he normally sells to the public, but he could not create, for them specifically, a wedding cake he sells to the public. According to court documents, Mr. Phillips did not look at their book of designs ("expressions") before denying the couple this service because it involved same-sex relations.

Good day, U.S.A!

This is the challenge for our flourishing republic. . . .