As I remember the photography case in NM, the state did not allow/recognize gay marriages, and at the time of the original incident NM also did not recognize civil-unions in the state. How could a non-judicial, non-legislative body (NM’s Human Rights Commission) effectively create an anti-discrimination law (I.e., their ruling in the Elane Photography case) for something that legally did not exist? [Please note that I did NOT say “illegal”, I said “legally did not exist”.]. And how did that decision not violate the Constitutional freedoms of expression and association (both of which may also apply in this CO case)?

That said, I would have baked the guy his cake, and taken his money, and had a good chuckle over it.

I love how everyone is sniffing about “obvious but unintended consequences” of Hobby Lobby, and ignores the obvious but unintended consequences of the various “photographers must photograph, bakers must bake” court decisions.