I don't think I could be much clearer. However, I will try.
PREFACE
I have not suggested that the baker refused to serve ANY products to homosexuals. I presume from the little we have that this is not the case. We are talking about a particular product: wedding cake. In other courts, the issue is the selling of flowers for a homosexual wedding or reception.
That is not the impression you have left me with. I know I am debating a few here, including yourself, but I do know that I feel like I am beating my head against a wall to get this point recognized. You finally doing so, gives me hope.
1) Offering wedding cake to the public and refusing to sell this product to homosexual couples is a violation of the law. Clearly, the baker sold cakes to heterosexual couples.
What law? Do you have a statute from Denver or Colorado law that makes this illegal? I doubt you will find a federal law supporting your claims but you can try.
2) Offering cakes to the public and refusing to sell cake to someone who differs in religious belief (in this case about marriage) could also be construed to be breaking the law. This would clearly be the case if the customer was to be married in a church. Here this would be discrimination because of religion.
I will try to make this point one more time as it seems that it is confusing to you.
If a person is forced to participate or support something that violates their religious beliefs, their religious freedom is violated. No matter how small or large that may be. As Christians we are called to follow the laws of the nation we live in as long as (this is the important part so I will repeat it), as long as they do not violate natural or divine law.
Good for us that at this point in time the 1st Amendment protects us from this type of violation.
You say what does this have to do with a wedding cake. Well if I as a baker are forced to cater to an event which is intrinsically evil, that means that I am being forced to directly or indirectly support an act that violates my religious beliefs. This baker is protected at this point in time by the 1st amendment.
Quite honestly if anyone discriminated it was the gay couple who refused acknowledge the religious convictions of the baker. It's like me going into a Jewish restruant and getting angry and dropping f-bombs because they wouldn't provide me a pork sandwich.
If this goes too far, then if I was the baker I would sue the gay men for religious discrimination, as they definitely showed a lack of respect for the baker's religious beliefs.
I have been wrong before; it happens. However, I would be surprised if the courts do not convict. presuming the facts are as they seem to be. And, yes, I support such a verdict. I also think that a civil case could be won. However, I would set the compensation at $1, which is not all that unusual. It really is the principle that is at issue.
You will be wrong here as well. I know that since the Dems have taken over there have be a concerted effort to eliminate religious freedom, but from the recent rulings of the Supreme Court, the judicial branch isn't reading to scratch the 1st amendment from the Bill of Rights just yet.
