Вот оригинал статьи (на английском) и полторы тысячи веток с комментариями.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-closed-_n_3856184.html
Я, разумеется, не осилил и 50, но, судя по всему, там везде одно и то же.

Тучи благожелателей, которые "удивляются" (читай возмущаются) нетолeрантности владельцев кондитерской, не понимая, что тем самым проявляют нетолерантность к убеждениям этих людей.

Куча утверждений типа: "Если вы хотите вести бизнес в штате Орегон, вы должны уважать антидискременационные законы штата Орегон." (Разумеется без приведения текста закона и доказательств того, что он действительно был нарушен.)

Впрочем попадаются и более осмысленные дискуссии, например (грамматика сохранена во всех цитатах):

"you're forgetting the NOT minor fact that these ladies already had a business relationship with this bakery and they liked their products enough to choose them for their important day. the owners knew they were lesbian for a long time, and had NO PROBLEM taking their money for those other transactions. the only time they said 'no' was for the wedding cake. THAT is discrimination, THAT went against the state law they did business in."

И ответ:

"What you don't understand is that a wedding cake would require the baker to be at the event, to assemble the cake where the wedding was being held...
So 2 gay folks come into his shop ... nor does he care about their sexuality, it's a business transaction on HIS property, off they go,over and done with-
However, with the wedding cake you'd force him to be at the venue and interact with folks he may not want to interact with outside his shop.
Their only mistake was taking a stand in Oregon, they should've said "we're booked"-end of story..."


Как видим обычный в Америке "налог на честность." Хочешь объяснить свой поступок честно - получай неприятность; Рекомендуется просто соврать и остаться в шоколаде.


Я не собираюсь копировать тысячи эмоциональных комментариев от людей, возмущающихся решением владельцев кондитерской; они все содержат одну и только одну мысль: "Как не стыдно прикрываться религиозными убеждениями, чтобы дискриминировать людей, которых вы ненавидите."

Скопирую пару комментариев с другой стороны, которые мне показались заслуживающими внимания:

"Freedom is the right to make good choices as well as bad choices. Or does other people have the right to makes choices as long as you agree with them?"

"Shame that people are forcing their morals on others. There is no reason why any business should be forced to provide services to anyone. ... The trouble today is that others can no longer accept the freedom of others. If you think forcing your morals on others is right, you need to accept others forcing their morals on you."

"So a private business didn't want to serve someone because it goes against their religious convictions....the refused party gets offended and complains....the state says "you must do this, your religious beliefs don't matter"....now they have to close shop. Guess the only thing left is for everyone to cheer and revel in the fact a small business is closing because the state is trying to dictate their religious convictions and morals. Where does that get us?"

Следующий комментарий чётко отражает мою позицию:

"... As an 'artist', I have the right to refuse a commission. Isn't a customized cake an 'artistic endeavour'? If they didnt want to create that specific cake, I'm actually OK with that. The couple has the right to take their business wherever they want to, right?
Why do they also have the right to force any one business to cater to them?
All of these questions are seperate from the simple truth that good business caters to paying customers."
Постараюсь сформулировать сам:
Если какая то работа требует "вложения души" то никто не должен иметь право вынуждать человека заключать контракт на выполнение этой работы.
Каждый имеет право отказаться от заключения контракта просто на основании того, что душа к ней не лежит.
Однако, увязывание своего желания взяться за работу с оценкой морального облика потенциального клиента является надёжным способом угробить свой бизнес.


Напоследок комментарий, который показался мне очень умным.

“There was no refusal to serve gays by this business, it was a question of what, not who. That is an important distinction. The bakery refused to bake a cake for a ceremony they did not support. The women had shopped there in the past with no issue whatsoever. So this is not like refusing to cater to gays, the bakery refused to cater to an event with which they disagreed. It is analogous to a bakery refusing to cater to a tea party event if the bakery owners were hard core Democrats. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. This is a big step and we should make sure that we understand all of the implications of this before comparing this to racists refusing to serve minorities.

The free exercise of religion is not the same as freedom of worship, if you look at the jurisprudence, free exercise is not constrained to a simple right to visit a church, it is literally a freedom to exercise your religion in ways that do not conflict with the functioning of society. So the question is does refusing to cater a specific event rise to the level of interfering with the ordered functioning of society. This case also intrudes on freedom of association, it is not a simple and obvious case, it has far ranging implications for all of us.”