[[The right to refuse service, then, means that public accommodations, such as restaurants, theaters, banks, gyms, and stores, can lawfully deny service to a customer if they feel that their business might suffer from engaging in such a transaction]]
From: https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/right-to-refuse-service/
This is a very interesting angle, and one that businesses might want to pursue- A Christian run business may suffer damage financially if they begin violating their religious beliefs and those of their customers by catering to groups who CHOOSE to practice something immoral (last i checked, we still have a right to declare homosexuality immoral according to our religious beliefs).
If catering to such groups would cause a decline in loyal Christian customers- or eve3n in customers who are not Christian but who object to gay marriage- then The business can claim that catering to homosexuals for the purpose of celebrating their sin (such as in making wedding cakes for them, or desserts celebrated gay pride month, or whatever) is hurting them financially as a matter of fact-
You said one can not ‘discriminate’ agaisnt peopel based on sexual orientation- however
[[However, a total of 29 states allow businesses to turn away a customer who is trans-gendered or homosexual under certain circumstances,]]
(From same link)
[[In short, the right to refuse service is controversial yet protected under the law because the act of refusing someone service—and the consequence of being refused—pit constitutional rights against each other.]]
(From same link)
For now- it is still legal in most states to deny service to people that Choose to practice lifestyles that are in direct opposition to a business’ moral beliefs, because, as the last quote states, it is pitting one constitutional right directly against another- and the courts have not yet determined who’s rights are ‘more important’ (Although we see the handwriting on the wall as states become more andb m ore hostile towards the constitutional rights of Christians and people of faith
Actually, I didn't say that.
I carefully cut and pasted the exact phrase from the 1964 Civil Rights Act in my explanation, which is: "outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
The gays were clever to tie their cause to civil rights, but as you and others have pointed out there is a big difference between being black, foreign, female or even a Hindu (for most their religion is the one they were born with) than being "gay" which is a set of behaviors.
Of course, part of their plan was to insist (only on this ONE thing) that it was Nature and not Nurture that makes one gay. These are the same people who will have a giant hissy fit if you start talking about Race and IQ and tell them that the "blank slate" theory of people is ridiculous, and that much of human behavior is genetic, and therefore groups of genetically related people will tend to behave in the same way regardless of the environment they are in (ie: black under-achievement in schools isn't the result of tests, teachers or bad parenting, it's a result of genetics).
Anyway, this one time they went all Nature, tossed the blank slate, to get their special rights into law.
There is much less evidence to support homosexuality being genetic than the links between race and IQ, though.
As for your larger point: you could try to use various pretexts to discriminate against a certain group, be they gays or blacks or women, but in the end the powers-that-be will get you.
One Federal Agency actually has fake home-buyers go around and try to buy houses. They will create a fake persona of a black professional with 15 years of continuous employment and a pre-approved mortgage and send them in to bid on a house, and then send a less qualified fake white buyer, and if the seller chooses the white they will be prosecuted.
Think about that.
Our obsession with "equality" has, in fact destroyed a lot of what was unique and great about America. The fear of being called "racist" is the main weapon that has turned the Conservative movement and all of it's principle actors into Cucks.
They would literally rather watch the country be destroyed than ever be accused of being "racist". And, it's not unique to the USA.
In England there are no several cities and tens of thousands of young girls that the society allowed to be raped, abused, drugged and bought and sold -- all because it would be *racist* to point out the obvious: Those Pakistani guys over their are raping 13 year olds and giving them heroin.
Cuck is actually a pretty polite word for standing by and watching that. And it didn't only happen once. It happened in several cities: the exact same thing.
Brown people can literally RAPE WHITE CHILDREN and get away with it, because: RACISM.
So,the gays were very clever to tie their cause to the third-rail of American society.
The problem for even conservative justices is that to rule in favor of the baker over the gay, they have to somehow preserve and honor the Civil Rights Act, which (in practice) is as or more important than the Constitution to modern America.
None of them are going to tear that down. None of them are really going to fight the "gay is behavior not genetic", they aren't scientists, and the science is unclear at this point. So, what are they left with?
That's why you saw this decision was so narrowly drawn. The Colorado Human Rights Commission was artless in their demonization and persecution of the Christian baker, so they lost.
A more even handed use of the same law would survive, and believe me the Left are very good at "lawfare" so future bakers will bake the cake.
In fact there is a nearly identical case in Oregon that is years old. Some State Commission fined the baker $140,000 for refusing to bake the cake.
It was upheld at the district level, and is now headed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
I bet they will uphold it too! That is the liberal lawfare move to make. Give the Supreme Court *another chance* to get it right and make Christians bow to the will of the colllective.
And, my guess, the Supreme's will choose not to hear the case, letting the punishment in Oregon stand. (Because: there is no history of the Commission like there was in Colorado, in part because it was a brand new Comission and the case was one of it's first acts, obvoiusly a set-up by the Gay Mafia to make an example of some random Christian).
So, if the SC chooses not to hear the appeal they get the best of both worlds. The tossed out some meaningless show-decision for the Conservative masses, but then quietly upheld what the homosexual activists want for most future cases.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that they all know about the Oregon case, and are planning on doing just what I'm describing. (some or most of the 7 who voted for the baker, that is).