It is a matter of "free exercise of religion" versus "public accomodation" (which finds its roots in the 14th Amendment...as implemented by the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
If the baker will not serve a fudgepacker, period, then there could be a case where "public accomodation" requirements were not met (particularly if "fudgepackers" were a protected class in a state). That's the first permutation.
Another permutation would be if a baker refused to do wedding cakes period, end of story. That permutation should be pretty much open and shut.
The real interesting one that I'd love to see taken up is if the baker has no problem serving fudgepackers, but won't do a wedding cake for a fudgepacker, citing free exercise of religion as a rationale. Particularly if the baker can document where he's served fudgepackers for other purposes. That would be a good case to try to move up to the SCOTUS for a ruling (which would be a crapshoot). The question being if the proprietor is required to have his free exercise of religion stomped on in order to provide a public accommodation...and when he is willing to accommodate that particular class, but not for that particular event. I would love to see Landmark Legal, the Beckett Fund, or similar take on such a case.
What I think would be interesting is if the proprietor was to put out a notice saying that they will not, regardless of the "sexual preference" of the person requesting the service, bake cakes for homosexual weddings.
Then what? They are explicitly saying that they'll serve anybody, but won't do that particular service.
I don’t believe in the concept of “public accommodation”. I realize it is the de jure policy (via 1964 CRA), but in my view, the 14th Amendment applies only to actions of the federal government, and the state governments.
When I read a story like this I start to realize how understandable it is for people to turn to brutal measures to rid their country of depraved freaks.
What if an atheist baker refused to bake a Christmas cake? Or a Jewish restaurant refused to serve a take out dinner to a KKK party celebrating the Holocaust? Do lawyers even use these arguments?
The problem is that behavior is treated as race, and your suggestion would be seen as saying "no blacks served." But in the application at issue here means a Jewish baker must bake a cake for KKK party celebrating a pork fest, or the Holocaust as said. They just need to assert aversion to pork is due to an (elusive) gene.
Another distinction is that “public accomodations” typically refer to restaurants and motels/hotels.
People, as a general rule, need to sleep at least once a day and eat several times a day. Every day.
Wedding cakes, on the other hand, are a once-in-a-great-while item, with a multi-month lead time; there’s plenty of time to look for alternative suppliers.
In this case, as others have mentioned, the “happy couple” probably went through a long list of bakers before they found one who didn’t want to make them a cake, so they’d have something to complain about.
Your language is over the top and offensive and distracting. What do you call lesbians? Do you also replace the word “nazi” with “jew killers” every time you say it? It’s a matter of maturity here. Your contempt is acknowledged. But I could hardly see your legal argument past all the fudgepacking (although I must admit you then saying a Suprem Court case would be a “crapshoot” made me laugh involuntarily... dammit.).