This is an interesting legal argument. It touches on a discrepency I’ve been trying to articulate in these matters. In this case, it proposes that the difference between the sale of an already produced item, versus the sale of an item produced by personal labor, is involuntary servitude.
But here’s another problem - what about restaurants, or plays? Restaurant food is made personally, and not mass produced. And plays are done personally, and not mass produced like movies.
I think the issue really must be religion in the end. The baker, for example, would not have a problem merely selling a cake to these gays. It’s when they wanted him to make a wedding cake, that he refused. So the issue is not baking or cakes, it’s doing such for a wedding. And that’s where I believe the court dropped the ball. The court focused ont he issue being commercial, but commerce per se was not objected to by the baker. Commerce that violated his religious view was the issue - and that, I believe, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
And the denial of the gay couple of a wedding cake does not infringe on their rights to go somehwere else for their wedding cake. So it can’t be objected to on those grounds. And, other than the wedding issue, the gays are free to purchase any other cake or baked goods at the same bakery. So religion alone is the issue here.
And, I believe, the case can be appealed successfully on these grounds, or failing that for procedural reasons, a new case could be argued successfully on these ground by the next comercial challenge by homosexuals - and you know there’s going to be another one.
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.
And even in this queer State of Colorado “we the people “ voted in legal ballot to elevate the definition of “marriage” as the legal union between a man and a woman to Constitutional status.The Reprobates could NOT legally “marry” in Colorado.Also our State Constitution recognizes the rights of conscience-and protection of religious sentiment. Every Judge in this State is sworn to support the Constitution. Article VI of the US Constitution declares This Constitution(the US Constitution) and Laws made in pursuance to it. (Note under English construction the laws made in pursuance to to it subjects those laws to our Constitution.... and all the rest of that clause likewise is subject to the Constitution — and the judges in every State bound by it (it being an article that refers back to the primary source (the Constitution) this Judge He/she/ it (to be inclusive ) has violated not merely the Colorado State Constitution but the Rule of Law and US Constitution all in one drug induced queer opinion.