Here's why the baker in CO lost before the Administrative Law Judge on the issue of same-sex cake

[dballance]

This article at TPM explains the background and the judge's ruling. In my opinion the judge got it all correct. Especially since there is a law against discrimination based on sexual orientation in CO.

--snip
It Doesn’t Matter If The Bakery Otherwise Serves Gay People
One of the bakery’s arguments was that it still served gay clients — the owner only objected to a wedding cake that would celebrate a same-sex marriage. Spencer argued that since only gay couples would participate in same-sex marriage, it’s a “distinction without a difference”

--snip

This Case Has Nothing To Do With Whether Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal
Conservatives often argue that cases like these that allegedly impose on “religious liberty” are the consequence of marriage equality passing, but Colorado doesn’t have marriage equality. The judge notes that this actually proves that the discrimination is based on the couple’s identity

MORE at link:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/

PDF of the entire ruling: http://aclu-co.org/sites/default/files/Signed%20Initial%20Decision%20Cake%20Case%20No%20%20CR%202013-0008.pdf

ALSO. If you look at the complaint the bakery is full corporation, not just the owners doing business as a sole proprietorship. This makes the bakeshop a completely separate entity from the owners - an artificial entity. One which cannot possibly be seen to be able to exercise religion and, therefore, have religious freedoms. This is the same issue with the Hobby Lobby that's coming before the SCOTUS.

ON EDIT: Some legal eagle should correct me here if I'm wrong. It seems the "implied consent" doctrine is applicable to corporations and even sole proprietors in this context. When you get a driver's license the courts have found that you've automatically given "implied consent" for a DWI/DUI test - despite the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. So if you get a business license or incorporate (still needing a business license in most places even as a corp.) you would certainly seem to have given your "implied consent" to abide by civil rights ordinances - despite speech and religion protection in the 1st amendment.

[COLGATE4]

1. No need to try to argue implied consent

for a corporation. A corporation, like any other entity is bound to obey all the pertinent laws in effect. There's no need for you to 'consent' to follow civil rights legislation, implied or otherwise.

[dballance]

3. Thanks.

I thought that was the case, but since corporate personhood has been running rampant these days I thought it might be good to parallel the argument in terms of corps being a person.

[nomorenomore08]

2. Shorter version: "Corporations are not human beings. Human beings have human rights, corporations

do not."

[dballance]

4. ^^^^^this. see movetoamend.org

Corps are not people, money is not speech!!!!

[Old Union Guy]

6. People do not lose their rights by being organized into a corporation. n/t

[dballance]

7. You are correct. Nor to corps become human by being incorporated.

Nor do corps become sentient beings by being granted a charter.

When JP Morgan Chase can be jailed or sit next to me in a pew they can make a better case for personhood.

[Jim Lane]

5. It's important to note that this decision was based on a Colorado statute

Some people (not in this thread, just generally) have the impression that "discrimination" is illegal. It's not. Some forms of irrational discrimination ("We don't hire Geminis&quot aren't covered by any laws (that I'm aware of) and are permitted. Others are against federal law and therefore illegal throughout the country. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is in an in-between area -- not broadly prohibited by federal law, and therefore dependent on state and local law. In some states, this baker's refusal to provide the wedding cake would be legal, despite being irrational and unfair.

The general principle is that you can't look to the courts to right every wrong.