Not to comment on the rest of what you wrote, but I think you have your facts wrong here. The Supreme Court found for the defense in the cake case, not the plaintiffs.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
Or are you referring to a different case?
I am, of course, referring to the future case, where the volumes of legalese will match my hearing while jostling the antelope trying to cut in front of me on the open desert "flats".
Thank you for correcting me. I see where we need new judges who will see things as I do. In this case I'm on the side of Sotomayor and the old Ginza girl If someone wants to build a church and bake cakes and define morals and norms for members, they should build a church, not set up a store with unadvertised prejudices.
On conservative talk radio, with folks like Jones and whatshisname with Caravan to Midnight, it can get dicey trying to sort things out, especially in my mind.
The case I was actually thinking about was the Oregon case, which was being considered for advancement on appeal to the Supreme Court. I think the Oregon case still stands, because of the material bias asserted by the proprietors against the gay couple. And a specific Oregon statute relating to discrimination. And, of course, I support the State's authority over the federal authority in all matters not specifically granted to the Federal government by the US Constitution.
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/st...akery-owners-gay-wedding-cake-case/985096001/
I am not actually a lawyer. My brother who was a lawyer, when I was needing work, settled me down in the law library and had me research his cases. Amazing stuff. There are almost always a lot of cases relevant to any point of law you care to make, and lots of arguments and ruling supporting or undercutting your case.
Ambrose Bierce famously said, in his Devil's Dictionary, that litigation was.....
Litigation, n. A machine which you enter into as a pig, and come out of as a sausage.