His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks. His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly - he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone.
He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here, just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake for these folks to celebrate their wedding. As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that. What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.
If you are Black, you were born with those genetics. Kindly don't insult us by trying to conflate deviant behaviour with an inherently genetic attribute. If there was a "homosexuality gene" we would certainly have heard about it by now, because that would validate the baseless claim that homosexuals are "born that way".
What religion discriminates against someone on the basis of skin color? (none, and especially not Christianity)
What a tired little strawman that is.
There IS, however, a solid religious basis for not participating in any way in the (for want of a better word) abomination that is a
celebration of homosexual acts, and the artistic effort of creating something to commemorate that can certainly be refused on a religious basis. As I asked you before (but you did not reply) Would you force a Jewish baker to bake a birthday cake for Adolf Hitler? (There are some people who celebrate that). Would you force a Muslim butcher to sell pork chops?
You can't act as if religious objections are trivial. People have been excused from bearing arms in the defense of this country in wartime after having been conscripted because of religious beliefs. So kindly quit trivializing the relationship between people and their God--a relationship people have died for, and in defense of--a relationship that will last far longer than the government will have jurisdiction over anything.
The clause "...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." applies. Any law which regulates any aspect of religious practice has to pass the strict scrutiny standard:
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutinyIn this case
there is no compelling national interest in forcing one baker to
bake create a cake
celebrating a union that is proscribed in the strongest terms by his religion.
(If you don't think such cakes involve artistic creation watch a couple of seasons of "Cake Boss".)
The Colorado decision should be overturned, and artistic license returned to the artists involved.
