... and questioned whether ruling in Phillips's favor would allow shop owners to post signs in their windows such as "no gays allowed" or "no cakes for gay weddings." >>

One of the first thoughts about historical prejudice that came to me was a story I read about 1930s Poland where one store (and this wasn't true of most stores) had a sign that said "This is a Christian store" which was understood by all to mean that no Jews were allowed to come in and purchase ANY item off the shelves, be it for everyday use or custom made for a religous wedding. THAT was real government sanctioned predjudice and not what you are seeing here in Colorado.

Over a decade ago in Germany there was a test case where a woman on unemployment was required to take a job in a legal business or lose her unemployment benefits. The legal, tax paying business was a house of prostitution. This caused an uproar and I believe the government backed down in their demand. But in a perfectly logical system devoid of Biblical or other morality, this would be "a legitimate demand." Notice the demand was not (yet) made of males requiring to work in a German house of prositution.

Getting back to America, Chick-fil-A sells meals to gays and straights alike (and even has gay employees, I have read) but does not make custom items for a gay weddings or any other type of party. Checking their website, I see they cater items for any occasion without creating special wedding design signs or food items. I wonder if a ruling against Masterpiece Cakeshop would result in some convoluted test case against them as well.