Tough problems require creative solutions. The Fairness for All Initiative has proposed creative public accommodations laws that make sure everyone in the public receives service without forcing religious business owners to personally perform labors which compromise their religious beliefs. These proposed laws reject old public accommodations laws that only leave room for one community. And they fall squarely in line with what the United States Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the case about the Christian baker, said society must do: make space for everyone in the marketplace to live according to their convictions.

Learn more from these scholars:

Douglas Laycock, Liberty and Justice for All in [Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground][0]

Kent Greenawalt, Mutual Tolerance and Sensible Exemptions in [Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground][0]

Linda C. McClain, The Rhetoric of Bigotry and Conscience in Battles over “Religious Liberty v. LGBT Rights” in [Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground][0]

Louise Melling, Heterosexuals Only: Signs of the Times? in [Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground][0]

Ryan T. Anderson, Challenges to True Fairness for All: How SOGI Laws Are Unlike Civil Liberties and Other Nondiscrimination Laws and How to Craft Better Policy and Get Nondiscrimination Laws Right in [Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground][0]

Jennifer C. Pizer, It’s Not About the Cake: Against “Altaring” the Public Marketplace in [Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground][0]

Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bathrooms and Bakers: How Sharing the Public Square is the Key to a Truce in the Culture Wars in [Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground][0]

Masterpiece Cakeshop wasn't a huge win for one side or another. Rather, it was a win for pluralism——the concept that there is space for all of us to peacefully live together, even though we have different views. In that case, the United States Supreme Court called the nation to do better and craft solutions “with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs,” while refusing to treat LGBT persons as “social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” That's what Fairness for All laws are all about.

Learn more from these scholars: Linda C. McClain, The Rhetoric of Bigotry and Conscience in Battles over “Religious Liberty v. LGBT Rights” in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground

Steven D. Smith, Against “Civil Rights” Simplism: How Not to Accommodate Competing Legal Commitments in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground

Louise Melling, Heterosexuals Only: Signs of the Times? in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground

Michael J. Perry, Conscience v. Access and the Morality of Human Rights, with Particular Reference to Same-Sex Marriage in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground

Ryan T. Anderson, Challenges to True Fairness for All: How SOGI Laws Are Unlike Civil Liberties and Other Nondiscrimination Laws and How to Craft Better Policy and Get Nondiscrimination Laws Right in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground

Jennifer C. Pizer, It’s Not About the Cake: Against “Altaring” the Public Marketplace in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground

Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bathrooms and Bakers: How Sharing the Public Square is the Key to a Truce in the Culture Wars in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground

Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Masterpiece Cakeshop: Impact on the Search for Common Ground in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground