Indeed. And that encompasses many things, including the fact all businesses are subject to government regulation as are our constitutional rights within the constitutional parameters as set forth by SCOTUS.The issue we are discussing is the INSTITUTION of marriage, and is it appropriate for government to force a WEDDING BUINESS to support and participate in an a ceremony of which they do not believe in.
Yes, gay owned graphic design businesses are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that wedding vendor businesses are. Printing shirts with the Westboro church's name, for example, can't be refused if the reason given is they are Christians (as this discriminates on the basis of religion, which is a protected class of which the Westboro congregants are members).I will ask you this: Will you support the government forcing and punishing a gay graphic designer to make anti gay signs for the Westboro Baptist Church event? That falls within the public accommodation law.
On the other hand a request to print offensive language on the shirts being ordered can in fact be refused because, unlike a decorated cake that contains no written messages or even colors/symbols associated with a particular group or organization, that is legally considered compelled speech. While you, the baker and his lawyers obviously consider an iced cake with no writing or symbols as "speech" and artistic expression, courts generally have disagreed with that assertion. Hence the reason the infringement of free speech regiment has been rejected in this case and similar cases in other states.
There's also very specific standards regarding general laws that have incidental impact to religious beliefs/religiously motivated actions to determine whether the law can be enforced or not. And again, courts generally have agreed the incidental religious impact resulting from anti-discrimination laws are constitutionally permissible because there's a compelling government interest served by them.
The bottom line is neither you nor the baker nor the baker's lawyers are the arbiters of the meaning and interpretation of either the constitution or civil law; the courts are. And if you disagree with heir decisions, you can always exercise your constitutional right to petition government to redress that grievance. Which the baker is doing in part by appealing the decision. And if he ultimately loses in court, then he can lobby the state and/or federal governments for changes in the law to grant exemptions from compliance with certain laws.