Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[WorldWatcher]

If I had to bake the cake I would do so to the best of my ability and make the experience so horrible the gay customers spread the word to all their gay friends. Gays today are quite likely to create another hoax so they can complain. I would let them know that I expected a hoax. Video tape the order. Photograph all the paperwork including the receipt. Have them initial everything in triplicate. All conversations had to be wtinessed by two witnesses.

Then the wedding cake would be baked and decorated according to their specifications but the bakery does not provide the figurines fot the topper and provides only curbside delivery. They are responible for constructing the cake themselves.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.​

If the bakery offered toppers and full delivery and setup to heterosexual couples, then denying equal treatment (refusing to provide the topper and provide setup services) to homosexual couples would still be a violation of the law because of the differences in service levels.



>>>>

And should a homosexual bakery encounter this issue when denying service to straights or Christians... I wonder where all of these de facto experts on the law would be then?

Yes they should if the basis for discrimination is religion which is protected under both State and Federal Public Accommodation laws.

You know, I just thought of something: I think people who support homosexuality would defend them. Like I said, in a reverse situation, the court could just as easily force the gay bakery to serve Christians. But in the meantime, you'll have pro-gay liberals on this board defending them left right and sideways

Wouldn't be me.

I'd point out the gay baker refusing to sell a cake to Christians because of their religion would be just as much in violation of the law as Christians refusing equal services to gays (in States where Public Accommodation laws include sexual orientation).

Personally I think that, in general, all Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, but that is a different discussion from what reality is.


>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

Consequently, no personal freedoms are being 'lost.'

So, what about the freedom to have a conscience? What about the freedom to not have it violated by being forced to?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.​

If the bakery offered toppers and full delivery and setup to heterosexual couples, then denying equal treatment (refusing to provide the topper and provide setup services) to homosexual couples would still be a violation of the law because of the differences in service levels.



>>>>

And should a homosexual bakery encounter this issue when denying service to straights or Christians... I wonder where all of these de facto experts on the law would be then?

Yes they should if the basis for discrimination is religion which is protected under both State and Federal Public Accommodation laws.

You know, I just thought of something: I think people who support homosexuality would defend them. Like I said, in a reverse situation, the court could just as easily force the gay bakery to serve Christians. But in the meantime, you'll have pro-gay liberals on this board defending them left right and sideways

Wouldn't be me.

I'd point out the gay baker refusing to sell a cake to Christians because of their religion would be just as much in violation of the law as Christians refusing equal services to gays (in States where Public Accommodation laws include sexual orientation).

Personally I think that, in general, all Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, but that is a different discussion from what reality is.


>>>

Well I am in agreement with the latter half of your post. I appreciate your objectivity in the matter.

 

[Jughead]

Then cite the Christian dogma forbidding one to accommodate a gay customer, or where to indeed accommodate a gay customer would constitute a ‘sin.’

Well, if we look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, homosexuality is listed as a sin. Now if we participate in any activity that supports homosexuality (like preparing a gay cake), we are endorsing homosexuality.

The same analogy can be used in the commission of a crime. Say someone who wants to rob a bank finds a driver to assist with the getaway after robbing the bank. The driver does not rob the bank, but he is just as guilty since he supported the act by helping with the getaway. For the guy who bakes the cake, even though he doesn't practice homosexuality, he is just a guilty if he prepares the cake as he is supporting a homosexual lifestyle.

So if anyone wants to prove to me that I'd be off the hook with God if I baked a gay cake, one way to do that would be to prove to me that if I were a getaway driver for a bank robbery, I'd be off the hook with law enforcement.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV - Or do you not know that the unrighteous - Bible Gateway

How does baking a cake ‘promote’ homosexuality?

That notion is idiocy.

And the cited bible passage concerns one’s behavior, not that of others; where there’s nothing in the law compelling Christians to engage in ‘homosexual acts.’

In fact, Christians accommodate ‘sinners’ all the time as part of their jobs; why don’t we don’t hear Christians objecting to that?

It all depends on what type of cake. I would bake a standard cake, for anyone with no issues. However, the moment someone asked me to customize a "gay" cake for a gay wedding, I cannot do this as my faith does not allow me to acknowledge or recognize gay marriage.

If I were the shop owner here, I would go to court and use the 1st Amendment to argue my case. No way would I ever bake the cake, as my faith is my reason for being, it therefore supersedes all else.

 

[Jughead]

You could appeal, but Public Accommodation laws have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and been found Constitutional.

The Judge was well with compliance with the law.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

>>>>

Well, if we look at the first amendment of the U.S. constitution, specifically the free exercises clause, it states:

#1 No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

#2 The laws was passed by the Colorado Legislature not Congress.

#3 From your incorrect quote about what the 1st Amendment says... Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."

So if I were the owner of the bakery in question here, I would find myself a good lawyer who is experienced in cases involving the 1st amendment.

You could try, but the only one that will be happy with the result is your lawyer when you stroke a check. Public Accommodation laws have already been challenged at all level including the Supreme Court of the United States and found to be Constitutional.


>>>>

Here is an interpretation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/PORF-HowConstProtRF.pdf

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Based on the above quote from the 1st Amendment, if this shop owner were forced to bake a gay cake, he would be acknowledging and recognizing gay marriage which is in direct conflict with his faith. If he doesn't follow the teachings of his faith, then he may as well renounce it. Thus, the judge here with his ruling is preventing the free exercise of this shop owner's religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If I had to bake the cake I would do so to the best of my ability and make the experience so horrible the gay customers spread the word to all their gay friends. Gays today are quite likely to create another hoax so they can complain. I would let them know that I expected a hoax. Video tape the order. Photograph all the paperwork including the receipt. Have them initial everything in triplicate. All conversations had to be wtinessed by two witnesses.

Then the wedding cake would be baked and decorated according to their specifications but the bakery does not provide the figurines fot the topper and provides only curbside delivery. They are responible for constructing the cake themselves.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.​

If the bakery offered toppers and full delivery and setup to heterosexual couples, then denying equal treatment (refusing to provide the topper and provide setup services) to homosexual couples would still be a violation of the law because of the differences in service levels.



>>>>

And should a homosexual bakery encounter this issue when denying service to straights or Christians... I wonder where all of these de facto experts on the law would be then?

You know, I just thought of something: I think people who support homosexuality would defend them. Like I said, in a reverse situation, the court could just as easily force the gay bakery to serve Christians. But in the meantime, you'll have pro-gay liberals on this board defending them left right and sideways

Nonsense.

If a gay business owner refused to sell a good or service to a customer because he were Christian, the gay business owner would be subject to the same laws and requirements as any other business owner.

Moreover, there is no such thing as a ‘pro-gay liberal,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.

Liberals simply acknowledge the Constitution, its case law, and respect the rule of law, as everyone else should. And liberals would and have assisted Christians when subject to un-Constitutional discrimination.

In fact, it was the ACLU that assisted the Employment Division appellee in the defense of his religious liberty before the Supreme Court:

Smith v. Employment Division | ACLU of Oregon

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What ever happen to the right to refuse service on private property?
Here's a suggestion sale them a gake at 10,000

 

[Jughead]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

You don’t understand.

The issue has nothing to do with what’s being sold, but refusing to sell an item available to the general public solely as a consequence of the customer’s sexual orientation, in violation of Colorado law.

If a customer came to the deli requesting a pork sandwich, the owner could refuse to sell the sandwich not because he doesn’t want to sell the item to the customer because of his race, gender, or sexual orientation, but because there are no pork sandwiches to sell.

Consequently, no personal freedoms are being 'lost.'

I absolutely agree. The bakery here sells standard wedding cakes to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. However, the bakery cannot sell a customized gay cake (with rainbows and such) as it's not an item available to the general public as the owner cannot prepare it due to his religious beliefs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What ever happen to the right to refuse service on private property?

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which included Title II (Public Accommodation Section).



>>>>

 

[Nosmo King]

What ever happen to the right to refuse service on private property?
Here's a suggestion sale them a gake at 10,000

If you're open to the public, you do not have the right to refuse service.

 

[BDBoop]

To me, if you can't respect another person's beliefs and opinion, don't go expecting them to show any for the beliefs and opinions that you yourself have.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Well I guess that is true. The shop owner didn't respect the beliefs and opinions of the couple getting married so I guess they shouldn't have expected the couple to respect their beliefs and opinions.

And obviously the beliefs and opinions of the shop owner were not respected either.

God bless you and them always!!!

Holly

P.S. Another place could have been found, but no. Certain people in this world just have to go and make a spectacle of themselves. All that couple did is give people even more reason to resent their kind. If they wanted respect, they only made it harder to score for themselves now.

"Their kind?"

I assume you mean humans. Because as a Christian, SURELY you're not looking down on another who was made in His image.

Surely not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well I guess that is true. The shop owner didn't respect the beliefs and opinions of the couple getting married so I guess they shouldn't have expected the couple to respect their beliefs and opinions.

And obviously the beliefs and opinions of the shop owner were not respected either.

God bless you and them always!!!

Holly

P.S. Another place could have been found, but no. Certain people in this world just have to go and make a spectacle of themselves. All that couple did is give people even more reason to resent their kind. If they wanted respect, they only made it harder to score for themselves now.

"Their kind?"

I assume you mean humans. Because as a Christian, SURELY you're not looking down on another who was made in His image.

Surely not.

Yes their kind.

 

[BDBoop]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

You don’t understand.

The issue has nothing to do with what’s being sold, but refusing to sell an item available to the general public solely as a consequence of the customer’s sexual orientation, in violation of Colorado law.

If a customer came to the deli requesting a pork sandwich, the owner could refuse to sell the sandwich not because he doesn’t want to sell the item to the customer because of his race, gender, or sexual orientation, but because there are no pork sandwiches to sell.

Consequently, no personal freedoms are being 'lost.'

I absolutely agree. The bakery here sells standard wedding cakes to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. However, the bakery cannot sell a customized gay cake (with rainbows and such) as it's not an item available to the general public as the owner cannot prepare it due to his religious beliefs.

Rainbows are against his religion? Woooooooooooooooow.

 

[BDBoop]

Well, if we look at the first amendment of the U.S. constitution, specifically the free exercises clause, it states:

#1 No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

#2 The laws was passed by the Colorado Legislature not Congress.

#3 From your incorrect quote about what the 1st Amendment says... Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."




You could try, but the only one that will be happy with the result is your lawyer when you stroke a check. Public Accommodation laws have already been challenged at all level including the Supreme Court of the United States and found to be Constitutional.


>>>>

Here is an interpretation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/PORF-HowConstProtRF.pdf

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Based on the above quote from the 1st Amendment, if this shop owner were forced to bake a gay cake, he would be acknowledging and recognizing gay marriage which is in direct conflict with his faith. If he doesn't follow the teachings of his faith, then he may as well renounce it. Thus, the judge here with his ruling is preventing the free exercise of this shop owner's religion.

What a load of tosh.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

You don’t understand.

The issue has nothing to do with what’s being sold, but refusing to sell an item available to the general public solely as a consequence of the customer’s sexual orientation, in violation of Colorado law.

If a customer came to the deli requesting a pork sandwich, the owner could refuse to sell the sandwich not because he doesn’t want to sell the item to the customer because of his race, gender, or sexual orientation, but because there are no pork sandwiches to sell.

Consequently, no personal freedoms are being 'lost.'

I absolutely agree. The bakery here sells standard wedding cakes to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. However, the bakery cannot sell a customized gay cake (with rainbows and such) as it's not an item available to the general public as the owner cannot prepare it due to his religious beliefs.

Assuming your State covers sexual orientation under it's Public Accommodation law, if the bakery has a portfolio of standard cakes and they are the ones available to different-sex and same-sex couples - probably safe. On the other hand if the bakery offers special orders where the customer sets the design and offers that service to different-sex couples but not to same-sex couples - probably they would be in violation of such a law.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, if we look at the first amendment of the U.S. constitution, specifically the free exercises clause, it states:

#1 No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

#2 The laws was passed by the Colorado Legislature not Congress.

#3 From your incorrect quote about what the 1st Amendment says... Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."




You could try, but the only one that will be happy with the result is your lawyer when you stroke a check. Public Accommodation laws have already been challenged at all level including the Supreme Court of the United States and found to be Constitutional.


>>>>

Here is an interpretation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/PORF-HowConstProtRF.pdf

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Based on the above quote from the 1st Amendment, if this shop owner were forced to bake a gay cake, he would be acknowledging and recognizing gay marriage which is in direct conflict with his faith. If he doesn't follow the teachings of his faith, then he may as well renounce it. Thus, the judge here with his ruling is preventing the free exercise of this shop owner's religion.

From your link:

"Free Exercise Clause – This clause provides each individual with the right to freely practice the religion of his or her choosing. It ensures the autonomy houses of worship and other religious institutions from government in matters of internal governance andreligious law. It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion. Importantly, it empowers the government to provide houses of worship with special accommodations and exemptions from civil law that might otherwise interfere with religious worship or practice.​

Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, if we look at the first amendment of the U.S. constitution, specifically the free exercises clause, it states:

#1 No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

#2 The laws was passed by the Colorado Legislature not Congress.

#3 From your incorrect quote about what the 1st Amendment says... Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."




You could try, but the only one that will be happy with the result is your lawyer when you stroke a check. Public Accommodation laws have already been challenged at all level including the Supreme Court of the United States and found to be Constitutional.


>>>>

Here is an interpretation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/PORF-HowConstProtRF.pdf

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Based on the above quote from the 1st Amendment, if this shop owner were forced to bake a gay cake, he would be acknowledging and recognizing gay marriage which is in direct conflict with his faith. If he doesn't follow the teachings of his faith, then he may as well renounce it. Thus, the judge here with his ruling is preventing the free exercise of this shop owner's religion.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ consequently there is nothing to acknowledge or recognize. And to acknowledge and recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law in no way ‘condones’ homosexuality, nor does it prevent one from following the teachings of his faith (particularly since no such ‘teachings’ exist to begin with…), nor does it manifest a Free Exercise Clause violation.

And, again, for at least the third time, per Employment Division v. Smith (1990), one’s religious tenets may not be used to excuse, exempt, or otherwise mitigate a citizen’s responsibility to obey the law.

Last, remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the First Amendment. Simply citing the First Amendment absent its jurisprudence is not an ‘argument.’

 

[Jughead]

#1 No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

#2 The laws was passed by the Colorado Legislature not Congress.

#3 From your incorrect quote about what the 1st Amendment says... Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."




You could try, but the only one that will be happy with the result is your lawyer when you stroke a check. Public Accommodation laws have already been challenged at all level including the Supreme Court of the United States and found to be Constitutional.


>>>>

Here is an interpretation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/PORF-HowConstProtRF.pdf

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Based on the above quote from the 1st Amendment, if this shop owner were forced to bake a gay cake, he would be acknowledging and recognizing gay marriage which is in direct conflict with his faith. If he doesn't follow the teachings of his faith, then he may as well renounce it. Thus, the judge here with his ruling is preventing the free exercise of this shop owner's religion.

From your link:

"Free Exercise Clause – This clause provides each individual with the right to freely practice the religion of his or her choosing. It ensures the autonomy houses of worship and other religious institutions from government in matters of internal governance andreligious law. It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion. Importantly, it empowers the government to provide houses of worship with special accommodations and exemptions from civil law that might otherwise interfere with religious worship or practice.​

Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."


>>>>

I was referring to this section of the Free Exercise Clause interpretation:

It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here is an interpretation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/PORF-HowConstProtRF.pdf



Based on the above quote from the 1st Amendment, if this shop owner were forced to bake a gay cake, he would be acknowledging and recognizing gay marriage which is in direct conflict with his faith. If he doesn't follow the teachings of his faith, then he may as well renounce it. Thus, the judge here with his ruling is preventing the free exercise of this shop owner's religion.

From your link:

"Free Exercise Clause – This clause provides each individual with the right to freely practice the religion of his or her choosing. It ensures the autonomy houses of worship and other religious institutions from government in matters of internal governance andreligious law. It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion. Importantly, it empowers the government to provide houses of worship with special accommodations and exemptions from civil law that might otherwise interfere with religious worship or practice.​

Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."


>>>>

I was referring to this section of the Free Exercise Clause interpretation:

It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion.

Public Accommodation Laws don't specifically target religion, they have general application.

The law was quoted in previous posts, please go back and show the section that applies only to Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wicans, etc...). Is there a section that says Christians can't discriminate but it's OK for every other religion? If so please point it out, I may have missed it.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What ever happen to the right to refuse service on private property?
Here's a suggestion sale them a gake at 10,000

If you're open to the public, you do not have the right to refuse service.

I'd serve them a shity tasting cake.