No it is not, when someone is accused of breaking the law, the law is relevant under the facts.

Except for the fact that it is actually entirely irrelevant that same sex events are now legal in the US. Since again, refusing to serve on the basis of what the specific request is, and/or not making certain themed products/items, especially ones that go against your beliefs/conscious, does not violate the law due to the fact that such laws only applies to denying persons on the basis of what is considered a "protected class".

Saying that you will not make a same sex event cake and/or will not serve to a same sex event ≠ refusing to serve someone because they are a homosexual

If a heterosexual/asexual/etc. person had requested them to do the same thing, they would have been denied as well.

In which also again, still does change the fact that such laws(ie. anti-discrimination laws) are clearly unconstitutional, due to the fact that;

• No one has the right, or should have the inherit right, to another private individuals/entities association. (see; First Amendment)

• No one has the right, or should have the inherit right, to another private individuals/entities labour. (see; Thirteenth Amendment)

• No one has the right, or should have the inherit right, to force another private individual/entity to serve an event, make a certain themed item/product, etc., that goes against their conscience/beliefs. (see; First Amendment & Thirteenth Amendment)

They were not asked to serve the event. Again baking a cake to be picked up and taken someone is no more serving the event than selling gas is serving speeding.

Absolutely wrong. Since again,

serve

verb

gerund or present participle: serving

• provide (an area or group of people) with a product or service

They were asked to make specific themed product/item for a specific themed event, which is providing a service.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I said they DO somewhat infringe.

Yes I did, but the fact is that they do not "somewhat infringe", they absolutely/completely infringe upon/violate their rights.

But also that NOT having those laws allows other rights of other people to be infringed on. There is no situation where you can have everyone's rights not infringed on by anyone. Compromises must be placed. If we do what you are suggesting people's rights to engage the service of a public accommodation are infringed and they will have less rights than others.

Except for the fact again, a private individual/entity choosing with whom they associate with, choosing with who they allow on their property, choosing who they give their labour to, and/or choosing on what products/items to make, or which events to serve, etc.,does not infringe upon/violate the rights of others. Since again, no one has the right, or should have the inherit right, to another private individuals/entities association, labour, to be on their property without permission, etc.

Also, your backwards thinking that people like yourself have some inherit right to another private individuals/entities association, products/services, labour, etc., does not belong in a civilized society.

You are STILL utterly clueless and unable to comprehend reading.

Except for the fact that you're the one who is utterly clueless and unable to comprehend the facts.

Now you are just trolling.

If anyone's trolling, it's you.

They DID have the baker's permission to be on their property and to trade the results of their labor for money. SO drop this lost point of yours.

Apparently your reading comprehension is disabled. When I'm talking about private property rights, I'm saying that all private property owners(ie. businesses) should be able to prohibit anyone from being their property, due to the fact that the government/state passing a law saying that one group of private property owners can discriminate, but one group of private property owners cannot, Which is complete hypocrisy and infringes upon/violates the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. The equal protection clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws."

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886) Chief Justice Morrison Waite stated, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

In Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court affirmed the doctrine, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since then.

It is a right they ceded limits to in order to operate their business.

Which is absolutely false, as pointed out above and due to the fact that constitutional rights cannot be ceded by such laws.

Since again, by using the same exact pseudo-logic, the government/state can pass a law saying that if you're a private organization(ie. business), or want to start/operate one, you cede your right to free speech, right to a fair trial, etc...

No it is not. If you can show where they were not holding to this religious belief in many other instances it should have applied you can cast doubt on its sincerity or their adherence to it.

Except for the fact that it is actually entirely irrelevant, since again, refusing to serve on the basis of what the specific request is, and/or not making certain themed products/items, especially ones that go against your beliefs/conscious, does not violate the law due to the fact that such laws only applies to denying persons on the basis of what is considered a "protected class".

The wedding was NOT their customer. THey were asked to serve a couple wishing to exchange money for a baked cake. A service THEY advertised they would provide to the public.