"Discriminating against gay people is wrong and unlawful, but the bakers deny they did."
And were found guilty of doing so - so it's a hypothetical statement
"but judges are fallible "
Especially when they come up with the 'wrong' decision
Accused people tend to tell lies.
"They did refuse to create a campaign slogan for a cause they do not support."
Wi;dly inaccurate again
"Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space, had wanted a cake featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie with the slogan Support Gay Marriage for a private function marking International Anti Homophobia Day."
"That is not discrimination."
Yes it is and it was found to be.
"Creating propaganda material for causes is not an accepted part of a baker's trade."
Taking customers orders is in whatever shape or form as long as it is within their capabilities and conforms to law and decency.
"Of course Joe did not compare gay people to Nazis"
Yes he did
"The suggestion is pure malice."
No it isn't
"He chose Nazism as an example of something we all disapprove of,"
You are now putting words in his mouth to defend the indefensible - it was, at very best, an appalling choice of words, typical of homophic but certainly nothing I would have associated with Joe - before now.
"so we could put ourselves in the place of someone asked to produce campaign material for something we disagree with."
They were not asked to produce campaign material, they were asked to bake a cake for a private function - the customer specified exactly what was wanted and they refused - simple as that.
The facts of the case state quite clearly that they refused the order because they disapproved of the customer's sexual orientation - the culprit admitted the same and was found guilty of discrimination for having done so.
Jim Carroll