Wrong answer, customers share in an equal right to all goods and services that are on offer in his place of public accommodation, reserving any one or more of them based on a suspect classification, discrimination in violation of the law. He only refused a wedding cake is no more an excuse for his violating the law than God is.The 1st Amendment removes to force of government in this case… Unless the baker was running around not allowing gays into ANY bakery then he is well within his rights.
I brought up the Salem witch trials only to explain the mindset of our founding fathers. They wanted religions and their religious to have a great deal of right to their beliefs and the freedom to exercise them, but being just a few generations removed from folk having God and their then government do something like that, it was never meant as an absolute right or freedom. There can be limits upon what God can excuse you from doing and limits on what government and religion can do in collaboration. They are necessary, religion and more often, the religious, can get seriously carried away. The government can get carried away too, but we the people are supposed to be the damper on that. The limit on not just the religious business owners right to refuse service, but ALL business owners right to refuse service on the basis of specific suspect classifications, has been necessitated by a history of bad conduct by business owners. Preventing random and usually ugly acts of bigotry in the public square, a compelling interest of the government, ESPECIALLY if they are protecting folk the owner has chosen to hate.Yes, and it’s so sad that 16 people perished, however, not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is not a fair comparison.
You've offered no other explanation as to why his action was one protected by the 1st Amendment, other than it just having to be his right to do so. I know you have some idea of there being some sort of limit on the right to practice one preaches, but you really haven't explained how or why this act exists on this side of that limit other than it being his right to do so, you've made his right an absolute one in regards to the question whether this act is covered.Please show me where I claim that the 1st Amendment gives “absolute freedom.”.