Ok so it’s clear you didn’t go back and read the entirety of the conversation that’s been going on since Monday when the latest outcome of the cake case was posted as all of this has already been addressed. But we’ll do it again ‘cause you’re a jolly fellow who doesn’t mind a bit of a row.
As to your first paragraph: CADA, the CO law in question, is just what’s currently being challenged as it’s a CO case and CADA specifically lists transgender protections. However this case obviously has national implications as thanks to Gorsuch’s 6-3 majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County transgender is now protected under sex discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now as for the protections that you claim would allow the baker to ignore CADA, you’re entitled to your opinion that a pink cake with blue frosting constitutes speech or that baking one would violate the free exercise of his religion. But the courts have so far disagreed. I quoted the court statements on those First Amendment concerns in the post you’re responding to. Could they go to another baker? Right now, yes. Because these protections exist. But if they didn’t, as many here desire, then that immediately is thrown into question as each baker would be allowed to refuse service until eventually there are none left. That seems unlikely to you typing on a message board in 2023, but the only reason we were able to get to this point is because of these protections. Denial of service was used very effectively against minority populations many times in our nation’s history before ‘64.
1) He’s being forced to close up shop, not bake a cake for a transgender person. He has a right to practice his religion, not own a cake shop. If he feels the two are mutually incompatible then that’s his issue, not society’s. He’s free to close for his conscience at any time. No one is compelling his speech as he can simply not participate if he doesn’t want to.
2) You ignored my example of painting because it didn’t fit your narrative. That’s fine but you realize you aren’t being fair in your analysis. As for the works your niece creates they’re inherently works of art. You can’t eat them. So that most likely falls under speech and is therefore protected. The pink cake with blue frosting however has been ruled by the courts to be innocuous with no explicit meaning and so is not speech and therefore not protected. I directly quoted that from the court decision as well in my post.
3) His rights as a Christian man are the same as hers. He cannot be discriminated against by a business for his faith just like she can’t be for being transgender. You only see her transgender protections as special because they’re new. They aren’t special. They’re the exact same protections that you and I and everyone else have.