The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
As far as I know, there's no Constitutional right not to be hurt emotionally. Also, the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. No, like he said, he was willing to bake them birthday cakes or baby shower cakes, just not wanting to be a part in their gay marriage celebration that defies his religious belief. It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.
This ruling set a very bad precedent that can cut both ways. Now, all you have to do to force atheists to attend church every Sunday or get them to participate in Christian holiday celebration is to go hunt for atheist professional writers. photographers, videographers, etc and engage their service with the demand that they attend church every Sunday and take notes of the sermons for the required projects. If they refused service then had the judge issue an injunction to compel them to comply based on this stupid ruling.
Now, they can't refused, can they? Or they would have to pay a fine just like this baker.
It not only doesn't shock me, it doesn't even surprise me that some people (Mostly Libertarians.) in the USA think that they will take the USA back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act days.
But it's not going to happen because too many Americans want to see the USA go forwards, not backwards.
Another person that doesn't understand what Public Accommodation laws mean.
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
No, the law does not mean that a Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli is suddenly required to sell pork products to customers. Why? Because those pork products are not routinely stocked or sold as part of the offerings of the establishment. What the law means is that **IF** that Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli **DID** stock and sell such items they cannot discriminate on who they sell them to based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, national origin, or ancestry. No business has to go out and start supplying things they don't normally supply as part of their routine business practices.
In this case, the baker routinely supplied and advertized for the sale of wedding cakes. Because he refused to supply the same "full and equal" access to goods and services supplied by the business to other customers he was found in violation of the Colorado Law passed by the Colorado Legislature by a Colorado Judge.
If a customer walks into a muslim bakery and demand to have a cake frosted with a caricature of the prophet mohammad with a bomb sitting on his head using whatever are in stock, would that be ok for the judge to compel the muslim baker to bake the customer a terrorist depicting mohammad caricature cake?
And like I said, the ruling cuts both ways.
Just that the claim was that their feeling was hurt.