Is the Masterpiece Case About Competing Rights?

I heard it on the radio this morning and I have heard it so many times before, "The Masterpiece Bakery case going before the Supreme Court is a case of competing rights."  I have heard it numerous times and having given this a lot of thought, I can't help but say, "No it's not!!!"  Let me explain why this case isn't about competing rights at all.

1. No one has a right to demand positive rights.  There is a difference between positive and negative rights.  The gay couple who asked Jack Philips to provide them with a custom same sex wedding cake was demanding a positive right.  Positive rights demand that a person provide someone with a good or service.  This can get a little complicated when it comes to public accommodation rights, but there is an important distinction that clarifies the issue.  To make this clear let's word it this way,  No person has the right to demand that a person provides a good or service that, that person does not provide to the public in general.  This is what this gay couple was doing.  Jack does not provide all kinds of cakes to the public.  He has defined what kind of cakes he does provide by having some guidelines about the kind of cakes he does not provide.  For instance, he doesn't do cakes that carry an offensive message; he wouldn't do a cake that disparages gay people, for instance.  He doesn't do Halloween cakes, he doesn't do bachelor party cakes, he doesn't do same sex wedding cakes, he doesn't do polyamorous wedding cakes, etc.  He doesn't make those specific cakes.  In other words those are products he doesn't provide for anyone (the public).  The products in his store:  the cakes, cookies, and cupcakes are available to everyone:  gay people, transgender, strait, black, white, etc.  Public accommodation laws cover those things, but cannot compel him to create custom work he doesn't normally do.
2. The gay couple's negative rights were not being infringed upon.  Negative rights aren't "bad" rights; negative rights simply require others to abstain from interference.  Jack Philips has never attempted to keep David and Charlie (the gay couple) from getting married, having a ceremony, or anything else.  If Jack had done that, he would have been infringing on their negative rights.  Jack actually recommended some other bakeries that he believed could help them with their request.  
3. Jack's refusal to make a cake that conflicted with His faith convictions did not prevent David and Charlie from getting a cake.  David and Charlie actually did get a cake and get married.  Nothing Jack did or didn't do stopped them from doing what they wanted to do and Jack never had the goal of stopping them.  They accomplished their goals, why not let Jack live according to his convictions as well?  

On a personal note, Jack and Debbie are some of the most kind hearted people I have ever met.  They don't hate David and Charlie or any gay person.  They do have deeply held religious convictions by which they want to live.  If the government can compel them to violate their convictions, it can compel you to do the same.  This case isn't about forcing everyone to believe the same thing and live according to the same creed, at least not from Jack's side, this case is about tolerance, true tolerance.  It is about having a society of freedom where people can disagree and live according to their convictions.  Please pray that SCOTUS will see this for what it is and rule in Jack's favor.  

---