While vigorously defending the plaintiffs' claims that they have a right not to be offended, the judge, the ACLU, and others in the LGBT community seem to be ignoring (in this particular case) the rights of the baker who chose not to fulfill the plaintiffs' request. Most people would immediately think of the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of religion, but in truth that is not the most relevant part of the Constitution here. It is the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which should be the controlling part of the legal debate in this situation.
For those who don't have their pocket copy of the Constitution handy, the 13th Amendment, Section 1, reads:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If Walmart, Sears, or any other retailer denied a gay couple the ability to purchase something that had been mass-produced, even if it was to be used for a wedding, nearly all Americans would agree that such a denial would be discriminatory. On the other hand, the cases that have gone to trial, and have had a judge find in favor of the plaintiffs, have been based on a refusal by the defendant, not to sell a mass-produced product, but rather to perform a personal service. The baker would have to personally bake and decorate a cake. The florist would personally have to arrange flowers. The photographer would personally have to take the photographs of the plaintiffs' wedding and possibly reception. In all three cases, the labor would have to be performed personally by the defendants against their clearly stated will.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...#ixzz2q4GsenRw
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook