Originally Posted By: judge sharpe
The Supreme Court has said, in a case out of Birmingham, Alabama that you can not discriminate against African- Americans in public accommodations. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Ollie's Barbecue refused to serve Blacks because of race. This was discrimination based on race and was based in part on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and interstate travel and commerce.
That has been the law of the land for generations.
The case was not about religious beliefs, but only could a person refuse service to another based on the race of the other person. But suppose that Ollie McClung said he refused to serve persons of color because he believed they had the mark of Ham on them and his religious beliefs caused him to believe that serving them was a sin.
HE WOULD HAVE LOST.
Fast forward from 1964 to present day.
You have many of the same elements. Public accommodations (open to and doing business with the public), Interstate Commerce ( ingredients used in the cake traveled in interstate commerce, members of the public who avail them selves of the service and products offered, and a business man who refused service to those members of the public. He is claiming that his religious beliefs forbid him from providing service to a segment of the population he disagrees with, i.e. homosexuls who want to be married.
Where is the difference in refusing service and products to Blacks and homosexual persons?
REmember that in the early days there were ministers who could find justification to discriminate against African-Americans in the Bible.
I think in a split decision, the Bakery owner will lose.
I do not disagree with owner's decision to refuse to make the cake, but discrimination based on a claim of religious freedom is awfully speculative. Suppose he had refused to make a special cake for a male and a female deer hunter, with camo on it and antlers and representations of firearms. Because the way he reads his Bible, hunting and guns are sinful, and he refused to provide the service based on his strongly held religious beliefs? Who on here would say, " He has a right to refuse to serve the deer hunters due to his religious beliefs."?
I don't know what the answer is. Do You.


Judge, I appreciate your response. Good stuff.

Like I've said, this is a targeted case by design.

Enter the Progressive Movement argument on LGBT?....not a choice, not just a behavior but natural inherent trait and born that way...so equal status should be given to that of race, origin, sex (actual), etc.

Religion is a natural right specifically by name protected by the Constitution.

Race, Ethnicity/Origin, Sex, Age, Disability, etc...are also protected because those are things are part of the inherent makeup of people. There are no choices, you are what you are.

Veteran Status...voluntary or draft...was specifically called out as protected in order to honor those that served their country...a high calling of duty...from being mistreated from anti-war advocates.

But LGBT? and the like? The issue is that a behavior regarding sexual issues (predominantly) is somehow on that same level? It is just a silly notion but since today the moral compass is so shattered in so many---it makes sense this would become a big issue. This case is how they are pushing federal recognition. Nothing more. Why, the gay couple got there gay wedding cake from another bakery easy as pie.

The baker did not refuse to serve gay people. He did not have a test for patrons...some LGBT? questionnaire...he didn't quiz patrons and decide who to serve or not serve. This bakery wasn't the only bakery in town...many options. He was asked to make a special cake for a specific gay wedding as a private business owner. A SPECIFIC Cake for a celebration of an alternative wedding that went against the true held beliefs of the owner. To make that cake and decorate it for this one specific event would be in essence approving, endorsing and participating in that wedding per the owner.

I say the right ruling is that the baker has every right to refuse to make that cake both legally and ethically and morally. This isn't a public accommodations case because the gay couple were not barred from entering the premises or buying products (patron comes in, buys a cake, pastry, etc) but were refused the specific making and specific decorating of a specific wedding cake for a specific event. This was about the wedding, not if they were sexually oriented in one way or another.

When did weddings get a protected class label?

Business owners and individual have rights too. What if this was a cake to celebrate a NAMBLA event? IS the owner required to decorate a cake for the man-boy pedophile gathering? What if a Nazi or Arien nation member came in and requested a "death to black and jews" cake...required to decorate? What if some dumb college boy came in and wanted to have a cake decorated like a vagina or some sexual image...required to decorate? when does an individual have the right to say no..I'll not use my artistic talents to make something that I disagree with based on a true held religious belief or code that is and has been protected under the Constitution?

We have fallen SOOOOO far in this country. So open minded that our brains are falling out.

Legally, sexual orientation and gender identity are NOT protected classes in Colorado outside of employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and credit. Well, not yet.

I'm hoping the baker wins.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.� Samuel Adams