As you know, bakers who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple ran afoul of the legal system. Now, we find that Muslims who would not deliver alcohol were protected by the legal system.

I am trying to avoid the conclusion that the legal system is here to protect people with whom the judge is sympathetic and to punish people with whom the judge is not. So here is my best shot:

1. The trucking company that fired the Muslim workers had many alternatives. They could have easily accommodated the wishes of the Muslim workers and still delivered the beer. Firing the Muslim workers for not delivering beer was equivalent to firing an observant Jew for not working on Saturday.

2. For the gay couple, however, there was close to no alternative but to go to this particular bakery for a wedding cake. By refusing to bake for this couple, this bakery was forcing the couple to either forego a cake, pay a high price to a different baker, or travel far to obtain a cake.

So if your religious beliefs to do not severely constrain the alternatives of the other party, then your religious beliefs take precedence. If they do severely constrain the alternatives of the other party, then the other party’s needs take precedence.

Does that work? If not, can you come up a better way to rationalize these two decisions?