Americans are feeling their way in the dark across a strange new landscape in these confusing times. Nothing is simple, nothing a sure thing, not even a mom and a dad or husband and wife. To wit: Three recent legal cases nobody would have seen coming 20 years ago.

CASE 1: In New Mexico, professional photographer Elaine Huguenin refused to take photos of a lesbian couple's "commitment" ceremony.

Huguenin explained — and this might have been her mistake — that she photographed only traditional marriages because of her Christian beliefs. Instead of finding another photographer and acquiescing to Huguenin's personal choice, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006.

Earlier this month the commission ruled that the photographer violated the state's discrimination law and ordered her to pay $6,637 to cover Willock's attorney fees.

CASE 2: In New Jersey, eHarmony.com, the online dating site for heterosexual couples, was sued by a gay man named Eric McKinley for not offering its services to homosexuals.

The New Jersey attorney general ruled that there was probable cause that the company had violated the state's Law Against Discrimination. EHarmony settled and agreed to pay $50,000 to the New Jersey AG's office to cover expenses and $5,000 to McKinley. Beginning in March, it will provide an online dating site for homosexuals.

CASE 3: In California, two doctors were sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian because of their Christian religious beliefs.

They had been treating Guadalupe Benitez for infertility for a year when she requested the procedure. The doctors said they denied the procedure because she was not married. Their attorney said his clients suffered a "crisis of conscience." They didn't rant against homosexuals or make a scene. They even told her how to artificially inseminate herself and referred her to another doctor, who did inseminate her. She had three children.

She sued anyway. And won. The California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that doctors had no right to deny the procedure to Benitez and that they cannot cite religious beliefs as a reason to deny services to gay or lesbian patients.

So, there it is. If you're the judge, how would you have ruled in these cases? Don't businesses have the freedom to serve whom they choose or as their conscience or religion demands?

The answer is not as clear as you might believe at first glance, and the ramifications are even fuzzier.

The popular legal sentiment is that if a business offers its services to the public, it must provide that service to everyone — and discrimination trumps religious convictions. Photographers who are in the business of taking photos of weddings must take photos of gay weddings, too. For all we know, if asked to shoot the wedding between a couple of dogs, they'd have to do that, too.