Jack Phillips, the baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case, told the “same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages” — even though the couple “requested a wedding cake that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.”

Like race, a person’s sex or sexual orientation aren’t legitimate bases for publicly discriminating against them — for religious reasons or not.

Consider the following hypotheticals:

“I’ll make a wedding cake for this same-race couple. But I won’t make it for that mixed-race couple. Because: Personal beliefs.”

Not OK.

“I’ll make a wedding cake for this same-race couple. But I won’t make it for that mixed-race couple. Because: Religious beliefs.”

Still not OK.

“[Mixed-race] couples can also help by not forcing those with religious beliefs against [mixed-race] marriage to somehow participate in their wedding. There are other bakeries.” (Michelle Quist’s June 5 Tribune column, with “mixed-race” substituted for “gay.”)

Also not OK.

And it doesn’t become OK if it’s about same-sex couples rather than mixed-race couples.

Victims of discrimination shouldn’t have to go elsewhere to be treated equally — Quist’s religious and personal beliefs notwithstanding.

Gregory A. Clark, Salt Lake City