Refusing to bake a cake is discriminatory because Oregon made it so and imposed penalties for violating the proscription. If Oregon makes it illegal to deny service for lack of shoes or a shirt, then that would be illegal. As of now, it’s not.
And their discriminating against the many to satisfy the political agenda of the very few. You can go into any restaurant in the state...hell anywhere in the country and find the No Shoes sign.
The fact of the matter is there is purposeful targeting of specific bakeries in order to punish them for their beliefs. Oregon is a very Liberal gay friendly state. You're telling me this is the ONLY bakery capable of making this cake?
No it's not.
This is turning out to be another case like Colorado where the bakery was targeted from what I can tell. The gay mafia got wind that this was a bare run by a Christian and they decided to make an example out of the owner.
That how the brutal fist of tyranny works and they try to camouflage it under the moronic guise of "inclusiveness".
No business should be forced to make anything that violates their religious or moral beliefs.
Should a sign and banner maker who caters mostly to churches and christian organizations be forced to make a banner for a LGBTQRXMDP "pride" parade?
Again the answer is no.
Should a Kosher butcher be forced to sell Halal meats?
What about a Muslim baker making a Bah Mitzvah cake?
Should those people be forced to violate their religious beliefs and tenets just because someone wants to create a issue on purpose?
If you know the Constitution as well as you claim, then you understand the difference between strict scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on noncommercial speech, and intermediate scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on commercial speech, and under which the state only has to show that the infringing law addresses a substantial interest, and directly and materially advances that interest by means no more extensive than necessary. Discrimination against a significant portion of the community on an irrelevant basis is a substantial interest and prohibiting such discrimination by businesses is generally a direct means of advancing the goal of preventing that discrimination that is not an extensive overreach. The punitive damages penalty is, by contrast, excessive and if anything is most likely to be struck down.
Funny...I never ready that in the 1St Amendment. Like the 2nd it's pretty clear in what it says.
And for commercial speech it must be able to withstand intermediate scrutiny not have it's 1st Amendment rights completely obliterated just because someone makes a profit from it. And in this case as in Colorado no protected classes are being harmed in any way by this particular baker's refusal to make a stupid cake.
When it comes down to it this is more about the free exercise of religious beliefs not speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Right now the state of Oregon and it's Liberal courts system are in violation of the Free Exercise clause by preventing this baker from exercising his religious beliefs.