So, here’s what happened here. Jefferies set up a parallel between a baker refusing to serve black people and a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. He entirely left out that Masterpiece Cakeshop, the small business of the baker in question, never once said he would refuse to sell cakes to gay people.

What he said, and what the Supreme Court agreed with (or at least didn’t disagree with), is that he cannot be compelled to use his artistry to celebrate gay marriage. Jefferies snookered Peterson into seeing this as a case where a baker is refusing to serve gay people at all, which was never the case. Peterson, usually so self-certain and on point, folded. It seems likely he just didn’t understand the case, or how it falls exactly in his wheelhouse.

Peterson is a Canadian. This actually matters here. Canada, for all its snow and inferior bacon, does not have a constitutional protection for religious freedom that mirrors that of the United States. It is perfectly understandable that Peterson would not understand the nuance of this religious liberty case. To him this scenario probably sounded like a bigoted baker just wouldn’t bake cakes for gays.