In another thread a while back, I reported on a case out of New Mexico...Elane Photography v. Willock, in which Company was found guilty of violating the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgement and on top of that the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case, denying Elane's Writ of Certiorari on the grounds that the case could not be argued on the merits...basically because there were none.
Two more cases have garnered more attention on this issue, but this goes beyond wedding cakes and flowers. A photographer could refuse to photograph a trans-girl because he doesn't "believe" in gender dysphoria. Clothing stores would be able to refuse crossdressers or persons it perceives as homosexual. The parade of horribles is endless which is why under Lee v. United States (1982) and Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990) The Court held that neutral and generally applicable laws are not unconstitutional as applied. By operating as a business, one enters into commercial activity and accepts certain limits on the exercise of his beliefs. It was also held that those same neutral and generally applicable laws were the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling governmental interest.
Anyway, the first case is out of Colorado...Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The issue currently awaiting petition before the court: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
All case documents are here, courtesy of SCOTUSBLOG:
The second case is out of Washington, dealing with a flower shop's non-compliance with that state's anti-discrimination laws. NPR provides coverage in the link below: