An examination of competing visions of conscience, discrimination, and the right to refuse

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Conservative America celebrated it as a victory for religious freedom and conscience rights. Liberal America decried it as discrimination hiding behind faith.

Fast forward to 2025, and a new wave of service refusals has emerged—but this time, the script has flipped. Restaurant owners refuse to serve customers in MAGA hats. Businesses post signs declaring ICE agents unwelcome. Social media buzzes with calls to deny service to Trump administration officials and their supporters.

Now it’s progressive voices defending the right to refuse service based on deeply held beliefs, while conservatives cry discrimination.

The contradiction is stark, uncomfortable, and reveals something essential about American political discourse: our principles often depend on whose ox is being gored.

The Legal Framework

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case turned on a relatively narrow question. The Supreme Court didn’t establish a broad right for businesses to discriminate against gay customers. Instead, it found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility to Phillips’ religious beliefs during its proceedings.

But the case reinvigorated a larger debate: When does the right to refuse service based on conscience end and illegal discrimination begin?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Many states have added sexual orientation and gender identity to their protected classes. Political affiliation, however, enjoys no such federal protection—and limited state protection in only a handful of jurisdictions.

This creates a legal asymmetry. Refusing service to someone because they’re gay may violate civil rights law (depending on jurisdiction and circumstances). Refusing service to someone wearing a MAGA hat generally does not.

The Moral Framework

But law and morality don’t always align neatly.

Those who supported Jack Phillips argued he wasn’t refusing to serve gay people—he sold them other products. He was refusing to use his artistic talents to participate in celebrating something that violated his religious convictions. It was about compelled speech and forced participation in a ceremony he found morally objectionable.

Those who support refusing service to MAGA supporters or ICE agents make remarkably similar arguments. They’re not discriminating against inherent characteristics. They’re refusing to serve people whose choices—political affiliation, career decisions—they find morally reprehensible. They don’t want their labor supporting what they view as an administration enacting cruel policies.

The parallel arguments are uncomfortable for both sides.

The Key Distinctions

Defenders of each position would argue the cases are fundamentally different:

Sexual orientation versus political choice: Being gay isn’t a choice; supporting a political movement is. Historical discrimination against LGBTQ individuals created a unique need for protection. Political beliefs, however strongly held, represent choices and shouldn’t receive the same protections.

Counter-argument: Religious beliefs are also choices, yet we protect them vigorously. And the intensity of one’s political convictions can feel as fundamental to identity as any protected characteristic.

Systemic oppression versus political disagreement: LGBTQ individuals have faced centuries of marginalization, violence, and legal discrimination. Refusing them service continues a pattern of exclusion. MAGA supporters or ICE agents face no such systemic discrimination—quite the opposite, they currently hold institutional power.

Counter-argument: Discrimination based on power dynamics creates a dangerous precedent. Do we really want a society where whether you can be refused service depends on which group currently holds more power?

Participation versus service: Phillips claimed his cakes were artistic expression, and creating one for a same-sex wedding would force him to participate in something he opposed. Restaurant service or retail sales don’t carry the same participatory element.

Counter-argument: This distinction is slippery. Is serving someone dinner truly less participatory than baking a cake? Where do we draw the line on what constitutes “participation”?

The Slippery Slopes

Both sides warn of slippery slopes, and both warnings have merit.

If businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ customers based on religious objections, what’s to stop them from refusing service to interracial couples? To women in “immodest” dress? To those who violate the proprietor’s interpretation of religious law?

If businesses can refuse service based on customers’ political views, what’s to stop a MAGA restaurant from refusing to serve Democrats? A conservative pharmacy from refusing contraception? A Republican grocery store from banning liberals?

Both slopes lead to a fractured society where your ability to participate in commerce depends on your identity and beliefs aligning with whoever owns the local businesses.

The Core Tension

At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: What kind of society do we want to be?

One vision emphasizes pluralism and accommodation. In this view, we tolerate businesses making choices based on conscience, even when we disagree with those choices. The marketplace of ideas extends to the marketplace itself. The social cost is that some people may face inconvenience or indignity in accessing services.

Another vision emphasizes universal access and dignity. In this view, when you open your doors to the public, you serve the public—all of it. Personal beliefs don’t entitle you to exclude. The social cost is that some business owners must provide services that violate their conscience.

Americans have historically struggled to reconcile these visions, drawing ever-shifting lines about which characteristics deserve protection and which conscientious objections deserve accommodation.

The Tribalism Tax

What’s most revealing about the current contradictions isn’t the legal nuances or philosophical distinctions—it’s the raw tribalism.

Many who championed Jack Phillips now rage against businesses refusing MAGA customers. Many who condemned Phillips now celebrate restaurants denying service to Trump officials. The principle matters less than the tribe.

This tribalism extracts a steep cost. When our principles shift based on political convenience, we sacrifice the moral authority to criticize the other side. We undermine the very foundations of liberal democracy, which depend on applying rules consistently regardless of whose interests they serve.

A Way Forward?

Perhaps the answer isn’t choosing one vision over another, but acknowledging the legitimacy of competing values.

Yes, business owners have conscience rights. Yes, customers deserve dignity and equal access. Yes, we must protect vulnerable minorities from systemic discrimination. Yes, we should be wary of forcing people to violate deeply held beliefs.

These values sometimes conflict. Navigating those conflicts requires humility, consistency, and a willingness to defend principles even when they benefit people we disagree with.

If you supported Jack Phillips’ right to refuse service based on his Christian beliefs, consistency demands considering the coffee shop owner’s right to refuse service based on her progressive political beliefs.

If you opposed Phillips’ refusal and see it as discrimination, consistency demands considering whether political discrimination might also create a society you’d rather not live in.

The alternative is a nation where rights and principles become mere weapons in tribal warfare—applied when convenient, discarded when inconvenient. Where your ability to participate in society depends on whether your beliefs align with those in power.

That’s not a country governed by principles. It’s a country governed by power.

And history suggests that’s a dangerous foundation on which to build a free society.