The floodgates to more loving couples and stable families? The horror.
When the first Public Accommodation Laws were passed (CRA64), there was a great deal of religious belief (mostly in the south, but also in other parts of the country) that "race-mixing" was directly in conflict with their religion. Indeed it was against the law to marry another race in a number of states.
In fact, the judge who upheld Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute in
Loving v. Virginia cited the bible and noted God had put the races on separate continents as proof
“that he did not intend for the races to mix.” It was literally an appeal to divine authority. Thankfully it was not many years (three to be exact) the Supreme Court would find laws against interracial marriages were unconstitutional.
Nonetheless, it was most certainly a "deeply held religious conviction" to some (and still is) that would allow them to discriminate in exactly the same way as the couple in this instance -- that is, a baker refusing to "be a part of this wedding."
How many would uphold that religious belief as Supreme today? With the baker being allowed to say "I don't believe in mixed race marriages, to me it is a sin?" How has it worked for those who have tried to use it?
As I noted in an earlier post of mine, bigots are free to discriminate, they however need to find a way to be clever about it. In Elane photography, for example, just saying "Sorry, booked up" or some other reason to not produce evidence you are actively discriminating. Same with the bakers.
I'm certain it goes on all the time today, and did in the past for the ones against "race-mixing" and integration for
religious reasons. So the message is clear: you want to be a bigot, be one. Just be clever about it.
This does not violate your religious principles.
Unless your purpose is to find an excuse to insult and offend those potential customers you think have cherry-picked as
sinners.
Which at its base, I think, is exactly what some of these
religious objectors want to do.
