You would think that the world ended Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether a baker could refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

You would think that civil rights had gone back a couple of hundred years because the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and not for gay rights.

You would think that the gay Mafia is about to rise up and smack me down because I have a differing point of view.

I’m going to express it anyway.

As I watched the morning news shows, the breaking news slowly spread. In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, baker Jack Phillips was declared to be in the right. He refused to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, citing “religious objections” because they were gay.

 

As the day continued, the wailing and the gnashing of teeth began. Proclamations that bigotry against gay people spread across the Internet. Lucas Grindley, editor for The Advocate, had a particularly blistering critique of the Supreme Court’s decision. Here’s an excerpt:

 

“The justices have gotten this one wrong, because they’re locked in their legal minds. They have failed to put themselves in the shoes of that gay couple or any future gay couple who just happens to be out shopping and has that moment of wondering whether the man behind the counter looks welcoming.”

Interesting, but there’s one thing wrong with Grindley’s assessment. The couple in question did not file the lawsuit. They did not get spurned by Phillips and go right to an attorney and say, “We want to put this bigoted bozo out of business.” They filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and that commission told Phillips that he was wrong. That’s when the baker filed suit against the commission. The argument wasn’t about tolerance of gays. It was about freedom to believe in a certain religion.

When you read the court’s majority opinion, you can tell that there’s not an indication that Craig and Mullins were in the wrong for believing their civil rights were being violated. Instead, the commission was wrong for downplaying religious liberty when it told Phillips he was in the wrong. Here’s what Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the decision:

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Folks probably want to point out that someday Todd and I could be united in marriage, and how would I feel if someone in a funky hat told me that he wouldn’t bake a wedding cake for me? I would reply that I would be offended, and I would make a beeline for his competitor, and I would tell everyone I came across that the baker is a jackass, and no one in their right mind should patronize his business for birthdays, bar mitzvahs and quincaneras.

I would find someone who supports me as a person. Most likely, it would be a gay person, because they understand what it’s like to be discriminated against, and they would know the signs to avoid ending up going from discriminated to discriminating. I would find another business, one that is tolerant, and I would spend my money there.

I wouldn’t live in the fantasy that the first business is the one to handle my wedding cake, though. I learned long ago that not everyone likes me, and a few people even hate me, and that’s just fine. There are ignorant people in the world, and they like to hide behind the Bible—which, by the way, never says someone is going to be considered an abomination and put to death for baking a cake for a same-sex couple. I’d post warnings via social media. I’d give the appropriate one-star on Facebook. I wouldn’t expect a man who despises gay couples to bake my cake, more than I would want one of Matthew Shepard’s killers to be the minister.

We should continue to fight for civil rights for all. Marriage was just the first step, but there are other battles to fight to ensure homosexuals are equal to all others. States are passing laws saying that same-sex couples should be denied the right to adopt children. That seems like a much more righteous battle than whether bakers will bake a cake for a gay couple.

Maybe someday a case brought by a gay couple will make it clear that cakes should be provided to all, regardless of religious beliefs. This was a case of whether a man with religious beliefs was unfairly oppressed by the government. Move on.