I am not as optimistic as you when you say that these bakers can win on constitutional grounds.
Judge Andrew Napolitano for instance ( not a left wing nut by any stretch of the imagination ) argued when interviewed on Fox News that the free exercise of religion is only limited to the exercise of religious ceremony and doesn’t include business, and on top of that, the government has no business doing things “based on hatred or stereotypes.”
Napolitano noted how, years ago, businesses could discriminate on the basis of nearly everything, from gender and religion to race and ethnicity (like those infamous “No Irish Need Apply” signs). He said that it’s one thing for a priest to be able to refuse to marry a gay couple, but if people are allowed to invoke religion to get a free pass outside of religious ceremony, the logical endpoint is someone saying “my religion prohibits me from paying taxes or obeying the speed limits.”
THAT my friends will be the basis for arguing that the fine against the Bakers is CONSTITUTIONAL.
(not that I agree with it ).
Yet... Hobby Lobby was exactly on this point.
Except, as I noted on another thread:
Art I, Section 2. Freedom of worship.So says the OR Constitution.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Art I, Section 6. No religious test for witnesses or jurors.
No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness, or juror in consequence of his opinions on matters of religeon [sic]; nor be questioned in any Court of Justice touching his religeous [sic] belief to affect the weight of his testimony.
Art I, Section 34. Slavery or involuntary servitude.
There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in the State, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
You’ll note that I qualified my statement to that other person by saying ... “again, given that your stated understanding here is correct” ...
IF his stated understanding is correct THEN he will win. BUT THEN ... that’s the crux of the matter in that one’s stated understanding may NOT be correct ... :-) ...