Supreme Court gives victory to cake baker

This is my belief as well.  Anyone should be able to buy any item non-specialized/custom item you sell and believe ultimately a case will make its way through the courts to rule that way.  The conundrum will come when you are asking for something specialized - just how much control will you have over that final product and what does that mean when your beliefs run contrary to what you're asked to provide.  In the vinyl decal example.  If you're offering custom sayings with lettering you've designed and you create - I believe you should be able to refuse to provide sayings that you don't agree as ultimately I think it will fall under freedom of expression.    

I would boycott any business that discriminated against gay people, no matter what reason they gave for it.

The “fascist gay left?” Hahahaha. Matt Walsh and his folks never disappoint.

This gay couple and it's supporters were vindictive and malicious.   

Personally, I am fully in favor of this baker.  Would I frequent his shop; absolutely.  There are issues which have caused me to decide not to give a business my money but I would never resort to death threats, lawsuits or attempts to destroy the livelihood of the business owner.  

I only hope that when forced to decide on the broader issue, the rights of the business owner to follow his faith prevail.

There is a difference between market-driven economic consequences and gang/thug mentality and actions

Legitimate question (with the hypothetical scenario that the Commission had been neutral): if the ruling had been in favor of the couple due to Colorado's law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, would you have still cheered, or at least agreed, with it?

try reading, Merge. My posts indicate no such thing.

That's the endgame, though. Allipeas looks forward to economic consequences for this business based on people deciding to boycott, samiam says she's targeting Christians and you say that attempting to put people out of business is a "thug" mentality.

You can't simultaneously promote the principles of the free market and then complain when the market puts out of business someone you find sympathetic.

I could name at least three businesses local to me who have been targeted for group boycott either because they had a Hillary sign in the window or have signs banning concealed carry on their premises. Still gang/thug mentality? Or just people exercising their first amendment rights?

Merge, first, I am not responsible for what another person posts and why would you assume that another person's post are a reflection of my beliefs. I have said nothing about boycotts being wrong. Thug mentality refers to death threats, harassing and threatening phone calls, stalking of this guy etc.

I am fully in favor of talking with your dollars.  Forcing this guy to go through a lawsuit; beyond the pale and done strictly to punish him for his beliefs.

I find it a bit ironic that she went from a country of assholes with respect to religion to one which will kill people for differences of religion. Go figure.

No, it doesn't refer to boycotts. As far as lawsuits, I think this was a waste of judicial time and resources. You notice that these type of individuals only go after small/solo business owners that they know they can financially destroy through the legal process even if the guy wins (as this one has). It is wrong. Period.  If gays want dignity and respect for being different, they need to give it to others as well.

There used to be a Pea (a red-haired woman) who was gay and she and her wife had a little girl.  I loved her.  She always stood up for the right of people to disagree with her or her lifestyle while continuing to live it.  She would have had enough respect for herself and the business owner to not go to that store in the first place (knowing the guy's religious beliefs) and if she had mistakenly done so, she would have graciously left and gone to another baker.  She would not have punished this baker or tried to destroy his livelihood because his beliefs were not hers.

You didn't answer my question, though - what other recourse does someone have in the law if they feel they are being discriminated against in a place of public accommodation?

I don't think you get to put qualifiers on what gay people have to do to get dignity and respect. Their rights to those things, including accommodation in places of public accommodation, are enshrined in the equal protection clause. Where rights conflict, our constitution is designed in all things to protect the rights of the powerless (the consumer in this case) from the tyranny of the powerful (the business owner in this case).

How was this couple to protect their own rights and those of others like them, if not by suing? If they accept exclusion from this bakery, then they're accepting exclusion from any place of business that doesn't want "their kind." What's the tipping point?

What rights?  To have a cake made by baker A rather than baker B?  There is no constitutional right to demand a customized wedding cake.  This gay couple was looking for a fight.  It was not about the cake; it was about forcing this guy to violate his own beliefs.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for this couple under these circumstances and I'm not going to get into a bunch of "what ifs" with you as they never lead anywhere.  

The right to be served in any place of public accommodation.

This couple doesn't require your sympathy. They require the equal protection under the law as guaranteed by our constitution. And yes, whether you want to admit it or not, suing was their only legal recourse to protect their constitutional rights.