The Supreme Court ducked the big issue, deciding on procedural grounds (Colorado did not give the baker a fair hearing). In general, that sort of restraint is for the best. Societal changes should come from elected representatives passing legislation if possible, rather than nine unelected judges.

As you can tell from the article, I see the merits of the gay couple’s argument, but I’m not as quick to dismiss concerns about the state forcing individuals to take actions they believe violates their religion. Where’s the line?

For example, France bans public display of religious symbols. That’s fine under the standard you lay out, but probably a First Amendment violation in the U.S. I prefer the version with more individual freedom.