In response to Soren Schmidt's comments regarding the pending Supreme Court Case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, ("Masterpiece Cakeshop is anything but a piece of cake," Nov. 6), I certainly agree with the conclusion that the court must be judiciously discriminating in making its decision.
However, the cases presented by the author fail to make the all-important distinction between refusal to offer a general service to a specific group and refusal to support a cause when doing so would compromise personal, political and/or religious integrity, thereby interfering with one's freedom not to be oppressed by another's beliefs, values or political agenda.
So, in judiciously deliberating this issue before us, we need to steer a course between two reasonable goals: avoiding harm related to group status, and avoiding harm because of personal/religious ideals, values and beliefs. We do not want to refuse general services on the basis of a party's group status, but one does have the right to refuse to support an agenda or cause that one finds offensive or ethically, morally or religiously wrong. This is not the same as causing harm by denying services that all people could benefit from, regardless of group status, affiliation or cause.