The New York Times digs into the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, which is heading to SCOTUS in the fall.

In the case, a gay couple was denied a wedding cake by a baker who objected on grounds of his religious beliefs.

It's baffling to me that any gay people could side with the baker, and here's why...

Charlie Craig & David Mullins — all they wanted was a cake. (Image via video still)

The baker is arguing that making that cake is an aspect of his artistic expression, and therefore, it is an assault on his First Amendment rights if he is forced to serve gay people getting married.

You know what else could be masked under the broad scope of art? How about stitching wounds? Is there not an art to open-heart surgery?

Anyone who thinks this is just about a cake is mistaken. This is one of many steps the right has made toward trying to free itself of having to provide ANY services to gay people. If so-called religious freedom prevails, LGBTQ people would be routinely inconvenienced even in cosmopolitan areas, and could lose quality of life — if not their lives — in more rural areas.

And don't tell me we should just go to an other baker. That's no solution if the services in question are more important than a wedding cake, timelier or life-threatening.

The case, as the Times points out, is likely to hint on the vote of Anthony Kennedy. One vote is likely to swing this thing. And thanks to those who didn't vote or voted for Trump, we have a bright-eyed new right-winger on the court, eager to do all damage possible to LGBTQ rights — and we could very well be facing more.