General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Todd Starnes: ministers who don't perform gay weddings should prepare for hate crimes charges [View all]Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)and that baking cakes is not, right?
That changes the legal analysis. The government many not (as a general rule) interfere with the free exercise of religion, under the first amendment. For purposes of the First Amendment analysis, it is completely irrelevant whether you believe some fairy tale book is valid or not. What matters is whether those whose rights you want to trample on believe it. Any attorney who took a case attempting to force a church to marry a same gender couple should be disbarred.
In contrast, a business you open to the public is not protected by the constitution - and you have to abide by the civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination. Whether a baker would be forced to bake a cake for a marriage he didn't believe in is not yet clear. Homosexuality is still not a protected class. What the court found was a constitutional right to marry - not necessarily a constitutional right to ancillary services. Gays can still be fired just for being gay in most states - I'm not sure it is clear that a baked goods would give LGBT individuals more protection than they have for employment. It is a much closer case because of the absence of a constitutional right to the free exercise of cake baking.