The Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding” has won his case in the U.S Supreme Court. The court deemed that the baker had been subjected to an “anti-religious bias” by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Judges voted 7-2 that the commission had violated the baker’s rights. And, in a land where it is OK to talk about judicial bias, liberal (left wing) judges agreed.

However, other cases will be treated individually, and this one is not a precedent for anti-religious claims in general. In this case, one of the commissioners is believed to have disparaged religion.

Modern America, and it some times weird Christianity baffle me, along with the ever ready take any thing to court and this is such a case sell them the cake, even do a bad job if you must, but this?

The issue was sidelined and not addressed:

A baker refused to bake a cake. Period, so what? It should never matter at all what kind of cake it was and why because the baker should maintain his/her absolute freedom to abstain from providing a service in his private and unsubsidised bakery (of course there could be adverse commercial consequences, but that's besides the point).

The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favour of a
Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for
a gay couple for religious reasons.

The Court avoided a wider ruling on religious exemptions
for businesses and the baker was ordered to undergo
anti-discrimination training.

The Court did not address the wider principle of whether a
business can refuse to serve gay people saying this -
"must await further elaboration."

Now this case leaves open the question of whether anti-
discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in
future cases. And I'm sure there will be quite a few.

There are already some Doctors who will not prescribe birth control measures and a number of Chemists who will not sell them - on the grounds of religious belief.
It's legal and it's happening in Australia today.

I think it's fair enough for any business owner to legally determine who they will and will not sell to, but in order to avoid potential customer embarrassment they should be made to display prominent signage outside their place of business.

Signs like "Gays not welcome", like the "Whites Only" signs in previous times.

That will clearly show everyone who they are doing business with.

However, I suspect there are many who discriminate on personal grounds but hide behind the dodgey claim of religious belief.

Also, I would not like to eat a wedding cake that was made by somebody against their will.

Dear Foxy,

No court CAN address the question of "religious exemptions" because no earthly court has the capacity to determine which acts are religious and which acts are not.

On the one hand you have acts that are truly religious, but have no theoretical dogma or an established church to back them up, while on the other hand, you have acts that are falsely claimed to be religiously-based.

Same even for conscientious objectors: how could a human court possibly see into the genuineness or otherwise of one's conscience within one's inner heart of hearts?

Instead of this mission-impossible, the freedom of non-action should be respected as sacred. No one should ever be punished for refusing action and just staying in bed. Non-action harms no one (other perhaps than the abstainer him/herself).

---

Dear Rache,

I see that while I was writing to Foxy you already echoed my words.

Just one point: I would not use signs like "Gays not welcome" or "Whites Only" because they are likely to offend people. Instead I would place the sign: "Private business - all rights reserved to refuse admission or sale". For the same reason I would never specify why I deny a service (if I do), but just say politely: "sorry sir/madam, I cannot serve you at this time. Have you tried this other shop (providing name/directions)?".

---

The baker's case occurred in the USA: don't they have a clause against slavery in their constitution? Slavery consists of forcing one or more others to perform work for you against their will, thus where comes the need to invoke religious freedoms? what other protections do the baker's silly lawyers require?