It was nearly two years ago that TheBlaze first covered the story of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado after its owner, Jack Phillips, refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple citing religious beliefs. In December 2013, Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled Phillips must “cease and desist from discriminating” against same-sex couples – despite his religious beliefs – or pay fines.

As though that ruling was not sufficient enough, last week, Colorado State’s seven-member Civil Rights Commission reinforced the December ruling – deeming Phillip’s refusal to serve an act of discrimination and ordering the owner to halt the practice.

The Denver Post reports:

In its decision, the panel required Phillips to submit quarterly reports for two years that show how he has worked to change discriminatory practices by altering company policies and training employees. Phillips also must disclose the names of any clients who are turned away.

On radio this morning, Glenn reacted not only to the blatant disregard of the First Amendment but the eerie implications of forcing workers to undergo reeducation camp-style training to better understand Colorado discrimination laws.

“You are now having to go into a reeducation camp to be able to keep your doors open,” Glenn said. “It's insane, and it is un-American.”

As Stu pointed out, this case does not involve a cut and dry refusal of service. Instead, Phillips refused to make a wedding cake from scratch for the wedding of Charlie Craig and David Mullins.

“I think there's a huge distinction between, if someone comes in and you give them a test every time of like, ‘Are you gay or not? Because if you are gay, then… you can not buy cupcakes out of my shop,’” Stu explained. “When you're asking for specifics – like a specific thing designed for a specific event – you're asking for them to create, out of whole cloth, something that they don't normally provided. It's a product they don't provide.”

A logical question in this incident might be: Why would Craig and Mullins – or anyone for the matter – want to purchase something from someone who so adamantly disagrees with their lifestyle?

“Whatever happened the little sign… ‘We have a right to refuse service’? You don't anymore. You used to have the right to refuse service, and then, beyond that, I have a First Amendment right,” Glenn said. “[But] forget about the rights, who the hell wants their wedding cake made by a guy who so vehemently disagrees with you? Why would you want that? It's your wedding.”

But the couple doesn’t see it that way.

"When it came time to file the lawsuit we realized that this wasn't just about us and they weren't just supporting us as individuals," Mullins told the Denver Post. "They were supporting the idea that gays shouldn't be discriminated against in public accommodations. We felt like the best way we could honor what they had done for us was to follow this through. It hasn't always been the easy road, but I believe we've been on the right one."

Ultimately, Glenn, Pat, and Stu agree this decision is evidence that this case was never really about the cake – it was about setting a precedent.

“It's an agenda,” Glenn concluded. “And it's an agenda of reeducation.”