Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Roy]

sorry I missed the link.

But again, reading the original story (from a link in your link's page)
https://www.news-journal.com/news/lo...5739c6ac5.html
It appears that they were again talking about making and DECORATING a cake. This bakery doesn't sell standard cakes, but bakes them to order and decorates them. They refused to make it for a gay wedding, they also refuse to do alcohol themed cakes and other cakes that disagree with their values.

The cake did not disagree with their values. They provided a quote for making it.

As a maker of custom art-themed cakes that is their prerogative. If the couple wanted to buy a standard cake, then it would be wrong to not sell it to them. They had a custom design they wanted.

Had the cake design carried some value or message I would agree with you - but it didn't. The bakers refused to supply the cake because the purchasers were both male, and not because of the cake design.

[Sparko]

The cake did not disagree with their values. They provided a quote for making it. Had the cake design carried some value or message I would agree with you - but it didn't. The bakers refused to supply the cake because the purchasers were both male, and not because of the cake design.

No it says they went in for a quote and it was going good until they told her it was for a gay wedding. The story indicates that they were wanting more than just a blank cake. They wanted a specific design, which prompted the baker to ask what type of wedding it was for. And the baker also mentioned other types of cakes they would not make, like a cake for an alcoholic event, which would mean it has something to do with the decoration of the cake. Or in the cake design itself.

But it is not completely clear from the article. IF they just wanted a plain undecorated cake then yes, the baker was wrong.

[Roy]

No it says they went in for a quote and it was going good until they told her it was for a gay wedding. The story indicates that they were wanting more than just a blank cake. They wanted a specific design, which prompted the baker to ask what type of wedding it was for.

That's your invention Sparko. It's not what the articles say.

And the baker also mentioned other types of cakes they would not make, like a cake for an alcoholic event, which would mean it has something to do with the decoration of the cake. Or in the cake design itself.

But it is not completely clear from the article. IF they just wanted a plain undecorated cake then yes, the baker was wrong.

It is completely clear from the article, Sparko. "Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages,"

It's obvious that you want these bakers to have refused to make these wedding cakes because of the requested decoration. But the bakers themselves say they will not provide any cake for a homosexual marriage, regardless of how it is designed or decorated.

I have no idea how you read "We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages" yet understand 'We will provide cakes for homosexual marriages only if the design is generic'.

I can only conclude that you are deluding yourself.

[Sparko]

That's your invention Sparko. It's not what the articles say. It is completely clear from the article, Sparko. "Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages,"

It's obvious that you want these bakers to have refused to make these wedding cakes because of the requested decoration. But the bakers themselves say they will not provide any cake for a homosexual marriage, regardless of how it is designed or decorated.

I have no idea how you read "We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages" yet understand 'We will provide cakes for homosexual marriages only if the design is generic'.

I can only conclude that you are deluding yourself.

IF I am incorrect in my assessment, then I said that I agree the baker was in the wrong.

Here is the original article:
https://www.news-journal.com/news/lo...5739c6ac5.html

And the parts that lead me to believe it was more than an undecorated cake:

"We just went in there to get a quote," Valencia said, adding that things seemed to be going fine throughout the process. "Then she says, 'Who's this for?' We looked at each other."

Edie Delorme, co-owner of Kern's with her husband, David, said she was up-front when the couple replied.

"And when they said it was them, I said, 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages,'" she said. "It's not against people or what they choose to be part of."

It's what they choose to make her business part of, she said.

"If I went to a baker, a homosexual baker, and they didn't want to provide a cake for an event that maybe celebrated marriage between a man and a woman, that would be OK for them to say, 'That's not in line with our values,'" Delorme said.

The baker credited the policy to her Christian faith, but she added there have been other instances when she has refused service for reasons other than sexual orientation.

"We don't do alcohol-related cakes or risque (ones)," she said. "We've turned down cake for, like, 'Can you make a giant Skoal can?' ... It's not that we single out one (reason)."

So what she makes is more than just plain cakes. She makes custom cakes, which include decoration and designs.

[carpedm9587]

you just keep piling on conditions, don't you? Now it is only immoral to force your will on someone for personal gratification? So if a parent would get personal gratification by forcing his kid to do his chores, that would be immoral?

So first I'm not "piling on conditions." You're asking questions that drive us into nuances of the original position. You're basically encouraging me to be more precise with my language. "Force" is not moral or immoral. The context gives it that moral content. So when I force someone to do something they don't want to do for personal gratification, I would call that act immoral. If I force my child to do chores so I will feel personally gratified, my intent is my personal gratification - I would call that immoral. If I force my child to do their chores to teach them responsibility, help them mature, hold them accountable for their "fair share" of the tasks, etc., that decision is not immoral. If I happen to feel a sense of gratification as a result, that is incidental. If the gratification is my purpose for exerting the force, that is a problem.

Again, you seem to have various exceptions for whenever you decide something should violate someone's consent, except when it is something you DON'T want it to.

How is that different from how anyone moralizes?

What happens when one day society decides that is it perfectly OK for a 12 year old to consent to sex with an adult, or that it really doesn't matter and an adult can make the decision for the child? Since you are a moral relativist, I assume you would be OK with that?

Again, you're creating a hypothetical that doesn't exist. I don't measure morality against a position I "might" someday have. I measure it against the positions I hold today. There is no context in which I would see sex between a 12 year old and an adult as "moral" given the developmental differences.

Again, what happened to the need for consent? You mean it is OK to force someone to perform some act that you don't want to perform as long as there is a law that says he has to?

You guys do like to keep coming back to "forcing someone." The only thing anyone is being "forced" to do is offer services without bigotry or prejudice. You cannot refuse a general service to a man because he's black. You cannot refuse a general service to a couple because they are gay. You cannot refuse a general service to someone because they are a woman. You CAN refuse a service to any of these classes if it is somehow related to their membership in that class. So you can refuse gynecological services to a man. You can also refuse to provide services that cause you to compromise your moral ethic - but not if you do so in a prejudicial/bigoted fashion. So there is nothing wrong with refusing to do a nude painting, so long as you refuse to do nude paintings the same for everyone. You can refuse to make wedding cakes, so long as you refuse to make wedding cakes for everyone.

The right wants to dive through a little slight of hand by saying, "we're refusing to sell same-sex wedding cakes to ALL people." It's akin to saying "we see same-sex intimacy as immoral for ALL people." It's disingenuous and I think people actually know it. The heterosexual is not going to want a cake for their same-sex wedding. The heterosexual is not going to engage in same-sex behavior. The position specifically targets two groups: homosexuals and bisexuals.

It reminds me of all of the complaints about Voter ID and the North Carolina ruling. "People need IDs to drive a car, why not vote?" is the argument. But that's not what happened in NC. What happened is the Republicans asked for data on types of ID used by voters for identification, and they explicitly asked for that data to be broken down by race. Then they wrote the VoterID laws explicitly to exclude ID types that were the ones black and other minority and lower income voters were shown to most often use. That is why the court said it "targeted black people with almost surgical precision." And then they wonder why the Republican party is so often accused of racism. Stop defending racist positions, racist speakers, racist ideas, and maybe that problem will cease too?

[carpedm9587]

Except for most STDs that is not the case, so your argument is not consistent.

Seer, anyone contracting an STD can have recourse to the courts to file suit. The laws are there, though it will likely be a civil action. AIDS is more dangerous so it has criminal laws associated with it. The fact that most people don't - they just go to the doctor and get their penicillin - doesn't change the fact that they can.

They why are you calling me on using the term "merely"? You have your opinion, I have mine. What makes you right and me wrong?

You're asking for an objective answer to a subjective observation. No one said you can't say "merely." Say it all you wish. I'm simply pointing out it is a debate tactic with no content. I trust most people with an understanding of English and debate tactics will see that for what it is.

[carpedm9587]

so MAYBE one? wow.

One bite? One STD? Not sure what this means.

The context is who you have sex with, etc. That makes the act a moral or immoral act. Of course acts can be moral. They are the only things that CAN BE.

Yes - morality is about separating "ought" actions from "ought not" actions. My point is that an action does not have a moral content in and of itself. The action must be placed in a context. "Shooting a gun" has no moral content. "Shooting a gun and killing an innocent" has moral content. Without the context, the action is morally neutral. "Sexual intercourse" has no implicit moral content. If it did, it would either be moral or immoral, regardless. You can only determine if the "sex" is moral or immoral when you provide the context.

I am going to just stop here. You are way too frustrating to debate with. You keep piling on conditions and changing definitions and changing stories so much that I can't even follow you any more. What you consider "morality" is changes from post to post. You seem to expect everyone to agree with your definitions and of what is moral and immoral, yet when they push back you seem to resort to "morals are relative" as an escape.

I am done. I will leave you to Ox and Seer.

As you wish.

[oxmixmudd]

So first I'm not "piling on conditions." You're asking questions that drive us into nuances of the original position. You're basically encouraging me to be more precise with my language. "Force" is not moral or immoral. The context gives it that moral content. So when I force someone to do something they don't want to do for personal gratification, I would call that act immoral. If I force my child to do chores so I will feel personally gratified, my intent is my personal gratification - I would call that immoral. If I force my child to do their chores to teach them responsibility, help them mature, hold them accountable for their "fair share" of the tasks, etc., that decision is not immoral. If I happen to feel a sense of gratification as a result, that is incidental. If the gratification is my purpose for exerting the force, that is a problem.



How is that different from how anyone moralizes?



Again, you're creating a hypothetical that doesn't exist. I don't measure morality against a position I "might" someday have. I measure it against the positions I hold today. There is no context in which I would see sex between a 12 year old and an adult as "moral" given the developmental differences.



You guys do like to keep coming back to "forcing someone." The only thing anyone is being "forced" to do is offer services without bigotry or prejudice. You cannot refuse a general service to a man because he's black. You cannot refuse a general service to a couple because they are gay. You cannot refuse a general service to someone because they are a woman. You CAN refuse a service to any of these classes if it is somehow related to their membership in that class. So you can refuse gynecological services to a man. You can also refuse to provide services that cause you to compromise your moral ethic - but not if you do so in a prejudicial/bigoted fashion. So there is nothing wrong with refusing to do a nude painting, so long as you refuse to do nude paintings the same for everyone. You can refuse to make wedding cakes, so long as you refuse to make wedding cakes for everyone.

The right wants to dive through a little slight of hand by saying, "we're refusing to sell same-sex wedding cakes to ALL people." It's akin to saying "we see same-sex intimacy as immoral for ALL people." It's disingenuous and I think people actually know it. The heterosexual is not going to want a cake for their same-sex wedding. The heterosexual is not going to engage in same-sex behavior. The position specifically targets two groups: homosexuals and bisexuals.

It reminds me of all of the complaints about Voter ID and the North Carolina ruling. "People need IDs to drive a car, why not vote?" is the argument. But that's not what happened in NC. What happened is the Republicans asked for data on types of ID used by voters for identification, and they explicitly asked for that data to be broken down by race. Then they wrote the VoterID laws explicitly to exclude ID types that were the ones black and other minority and lower income voters were shown to most often use. That is why the court said it "targeted black people with almost surgical precision." And then they wonder why the Republican party is so often accused of racism. Stop defending racist positions, racist speakers, racist ideas, and maybe that problem will cease too?

You guys keep arguing to turn the issue into what you want it to be. An artisan has the right to refuse work that violates their ethics. Period. It is clear from the quotes given that these people chose to do cakes that celebrate events that are within their ethical bounds and the refuse to create cakes that violate their ethics. The rest or your arguments are nothing more than window dressing around a desire to impose a different ethical standard upon them and deny them the freedom guaranteed by the constitution to practice their religion.

The bottom line is this. Religions are moral. That means that sometimes a religions person must say: "I can't do that because it is immoral" and it is something another person wants to do, then we have two courses of action. The person not bound by that moral code can take that inward and be offended "How DARE you accuse me of doing something immoral!", which is what this case is all about. OR, we can look outward and say "Hey man, I respect you morals and ethics. Do as your conscience dictates". This is especially true as regards personal sexual or behavioral morals that inherently strengthen our society when followed. Further, the respectful approach leaves open the possibility of dialogue and change, and respects each person and shows tolerance all the way around.

And as the morals standards of our society veer farther and farther from the ethical underpinnings (Judeo-Chrstian religious values) under which the system was created, the more often these sort of conflicts will arise. But the reality is that you are arguing against the freedom of religion and for your right to impose your moral standards on another in violation of their religions historical teachings. Which violates the fundamental spirit and text of a large part of the American Constitution. And we are not talking about some johnny come lately opportunistic religion. We are talking about the religions that form the moral underpinnings of the majority of the free world.

We need to take approaches to these problem that maximize the freedoms we cherish. You are not seeking that sort of a solution. Yes we have allowed same-sex people to wed. Yes we allow people the free exercise of their religion. In this case, that means the people getting married live and let live. And the Bakers live and let live. The same respect and tolerance they will not show to these bakers is the same respect and tolerance they so desperately desire. The solution here is that unless the bakers are rude and clearly prejudicial beyond the moral teachings of their religion, they say - "we respect your commitment to you ethics and we will find another baker". And the gay community and all who support the gay community can express their feeling in the matter and buy cakes elsewhere. And everyone is allowed to do as their conscience dictates, and everyone acts with respect and love to each other. THAT is the way this should be going. And that is the way ALL of US should be encouraging this to go. We act with respect and according to our morals. In this case there is no purpose other than revenge associated with suing the bakers, and if the ruling is in favor of the same-sex couple, the rights of ALL of us to work and create in harmony with our ethical and religious beliefs are violated.

This is no trivial matter.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

You guys keep arguing to turn the issue into what you want it to be. An artisan has the right to refuse work that violates their ethics. Period.

Yes - they do - that is not contested. What they cannto do is apply that rule differently for different classes of people. THAT is immoral.

It is clear from the quotes given that these people chose to do cakes that celebrate events that are within their ethical bounds and the refuse to create cakes that violate their ethics. The rest or your arguments are nothing more than window dressing around a desire to impose a different ethical standard upon them and deny them the freedom guaranteed by the constitution to practice their religion.

No - that is a misscharacterization.

The bottom line is this. Religions are moral.

I reject this claim. Religion CAN be moral - MAY be moral - but they can also foster immoral attitudes and take immoral positions. We don't need to look much past the inquisitions and the crusades to see this in operation.

That means that sometimes a religions person must say: "I can't do that because it is immoral" and it is something another person wants to do, then we have two courses of action. The person not bound by that moral code can take that inward and be offended "How DARE you accuse me of doing something immoral!", which is what this case is all about. OR, we can look outward and say "Hey man, I respect you morals and ethics. Do as your conscience dictates". This is especially true as regards personal sexual or behavioral morals that inherently strengthen our society when followed. Further, the respectful approach leaves open the possibility of dialogue and change, and respects each person and shows tolerance all the way around.

There is no moral defense for discrimination/prejudice/bigotry. When it is present, even if the claim is that it is religiously justified, it must be called out.

And as the morals standards of our society veer farther and farther from the ethical underpinnings (Judeo-Chrstian religious values) under which the system was created, the more often these sort of conflicts will arise. But the reality is that you are arguing against the freedom of religion and for your right to impose your moral standards on another in violation of their religions historical teachings. Which violates the fundamental spirit and text of a large part of the American Constitution. And we are not talking about some johnny come lately opportunistic religion. We are talking about the religions that form the moral underpinnings of the majority of the free world.

Oh horse hockey. I'm sorry Jim, but this "society is based on Christian values so you owe us" milarky is overdue to end. This nation was founded by an incredible hodgepodge of people: theists, deists, atheists, and the list goes on. These founders were so adamant that this new country NOT replicate the religious persecution from which they came, they intentionally eliminated all references to god/creator from the constitution. It is in the Declaration - but not the founding document that guides our legal system and national structure. This is a nation of many faiths - and many non-faiths. ALL have a voice. There is no more right of the Christian world to "rule the day" than any other voice in this nation of ours. This sense of entitlement expressed by the right is repugnant. Make room - some of us are NOT Christians - and it is still our country.

We need to take approaches to these problem that maximize the freedoms we cherish. You are not seeking that sort of a solution.

I contest this. No one is saying the Christian may not follow their conscience. What IS being said is the Christian who wants to engage in the public market place may not impose their conscience on others. Apply your conscience equally to all people, and no one will complain. If you make wedding cakes - make them for all. If you cannot do so, don't make them. You can follow your conscience - but do not use your religion as an excuse for bigotry and prejudice. You do not get that pass.

Yes we have allowed same-sex people to wed. Yes we allow people the free exercise of their religion. In this case, that means the people getting married live and let live. And the Bakers live and let live. The same respect and tolerance they will not show to these bakers is the same respect and tolerance they so desperately desire.

Horse hockey. The bakers are being held to a non-prejudicial standard. If you want to hold your position - be sure to apply it equally to all people. If you do not do so, then like the restaurant that denied a seat to the black man, we will resist you.

The solution here is that unless the bakers are rude and clearly prejudicial beyond the moral teachings of their religion, they say - "we respect your commitment to you ethics and we will find another baker". And the gay community and all who support the gay community can express their feeling in the matter and buy cakes elsewhere. And everyone is allowed to do as their conscience dictates, and everyone acts with respect and love to each other. THAT is the way this should be going.

So the restaurant owner who feels it is immoral for him to serve a black man should be allowed to deny the black man access to his store on the basis of the color of his skin. After all, the black man can go to one of those black restaurants and get food - so the restaurant owner is allowed to follow their conscience and the black man can get his food and everyone loves everyone else. THAT is the way this should be going.

But it's not. When you reject a man because of the color of his skin, you are practicing bigotry. When you reject a couple because they happen to both have penises or both have vaginas, you are practicing bigotry. If you cannot accept the black man into your restaurant - so be it - close your restaurant and get a job as a <insert job here>. Likewise, if you cannot accept the homosexual couple, get out of the wedding cake business and bake other things - as this couple said they would do. Do not hide behind your religion to treat other people as "lower class" and "morally bankrupt."

And that is the way ALL of US should be encouraging this to go. We act with respect and according to our morals. In this case there is no purpose other than revenge associated with suing the bakers, and if the ruling is in favor of the same-sex couple, the rights of ALL of us to work and create in harmony with our ethical and religious beliefs are violated.

This is no trivial matter.

Jim

You're right - it is no trivial matter. NONE of us can stand by and let prejudice and bigotry rule the day. If you want to stand by your principles, fine. Then own the cost of those principles and do not transfer that cost to a couple who simply comes to a business to buy a service that is available to anyone else.

[Tassman]

No it says they went in for a quote and it was going good until they told her it was for a gay wedding. The story indicates that they were wanting more than just a blank cake. They wanted a specific design, which prompted the baker to ask what type of wedding it was for. And the baker also mentioned other types of cakes they would not make, like a cake for an alcoholic event, which would mean it has something to do with the decoration of the cake. Or in the cake design itself.

But it is not completely clear from the article. IF they just wanted a plain undecorated cake then yes, the baker was wrong.

"Civil Rights Act of 1964 definition. A federal law that authorised federal action against segregation in public accommodations, public facilities, and employment". A cake shop falls under the category of a "public accommodation", so the personal views of the cake shop owners are irrelevant.

[Roy]

IF I am incorrect in my assessment, then I said that I agree the baker was in the wrong.

You are incorrect in your assessment. The bakers did not reject the design.

So what she makes is more than just plain cakes. She makes custom cakes, which include decoration and designs.

Yes, they do. But they did not reject the design. They provided a quote for it.

There is a difference between saying 'We don't provide risqué cakes' or 'We don't provide alcohol-related cakes' vs "We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages". The first two are rejections of the cake design. The third is rejection of the event and/or the customers.

'We don't provide risqué cakes' vs 'We don't provide cakes for risqué marriages'
'We don't provide alcohol-related cakes' vs 'We don't provide cakes for marriages where alcohol is served'
'We don't provide cakes that support homosexuality' vs "We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages"

[oxmixmudd]

Yes - they do - that is not contested. What they cannto do is apply that rule differently for different classes of people. THAT is immoral.



No - that is a misscharacterization.



I reject this claim. Religion CAN be moral - MAY be moral - but they can also foster immoral attitudes and take immoral positions. We don't need to look much past the inquisitions and the crusades to see this in operation.



There is no moral defense for discrimination/prejudice/bigotry. When it is present, even if the claim is that it is religiously justified, it must be called out.



Oh horse hockey. I'm sorry Jim, but this "society is based on Christian values so you owe us" milarky is overdue to end. This nation was founded by an incredible hodgepodge of people: theists, deists, atheists, and the list goes on. These founders were so adamant that this new country NOT replicate the religious persecution from which they came, they intentionally eliminated all references to god/creator from the constitution. It is in the Declaration - but not the founding document that guides our legal system and national structure. This is a nation of many faiths - and many non-faiths. ALL have a voice. There is no more right of the Christian world to "rule the day" than any other voice in this nation of ours. This sense of entitlement expressed by the right is repugnant. Make room - some of us are NOT Christians - and it is still our country.



I contest this. No one is saying the Christian may not follow their conscience. What IS being said is the Christian who wants to engage in the public market place may not impose their conscience on others. Apply your conscience equally to all people, and no one will complain. If you make wedding cakes - make them for all. If you cannot do so, don't make them. You can follow your conscience - but do not use your religion as an excuse for bigotry and prejudice. You do not get that pass.



Horse hockey. The bakers are being held to a non-prejudicial standard. If you want to hold your position - be sure to apply it equally to all people. If you do not do so, then like the restaurant that denied a seat to the black man, we will resist you.



So the restaurant owner who feels it is immoral for him to serve a black man should be allowed to deny the black man access to his store on the basis of the color of his skin. After all, the black man can go to one of those black restaurants and get food - so the restaurant owner is allowed to follow their conscience and the black man can get his food and everyone loves everyone else. THAT is the way this should be going.

But it's not. When you reject a man because of the color of his skin, you are practicing bigotry. When you reject a couple because they happen to both have penises or both have vaginas, you are practicing bigotry. If you cannot accept the black man into your restaurant - so be it - close your restaurant and get a job as a <insert job here>. Likewise, if you cannot accept the homosexual couple, get out of the wedding cake business and bake other things - as this couple said they would do. Do not hide behind your religion to treat other people as "lower class" and "morally bankrupt."



You're right - it is no trivial matter. NONE of us can stand by and let prejudice and bigotry rule the day. If you want to stand by your principles, fine. Then own the cost of those principles and do not transfer that cost to a couple who simply comes to a business to buy a service that is available to anyone else.

This situation is not even remotely like racial discrimination. These was a cake for a specific type of celebration, one they can not support morally. It had nothing to do with who the people asking for the cake ARE, it had to do with what they wanted to DO. Your obstinate refusal to comprehend the difference is why we can't have a meaningful discussion on the issue. You can't provide one reason to support your assertion they refused them because of who they ARE, and you can't explain why my case it is about what they wanted to DO is wrong. You simply assert it is about who they ARE.

Your assertions are not reasons. I have explained over and over WHY I believe this is NOT about discrimination. To form a reasoned counter to my points, you must establish that they were refusing the people based on who they ARE and not simply bowing out of producing their product for a particular kind of celebration, because of what they were DOING. Asserting that is the case is NOT a reason and it is not honest in terms of being 'open minded' in the discussion, which is something you claim you value.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

"Civil Rights Act of 1964 definition. A federal law that authorised federal action against segregation in public accommodations, public facilities, and employment". A cake shop falls under the category of a "public accommodation", so the personal views of the cake shop owners are irrelevant.

Not when the case take on the form of FORCING the owners to PRODUCE an artifact for use. It is one thing to say - you will ALLOW these people to come here and eat the food you make. It is quite another to tell someone you must MAKE this item for use in X celebration even though X celebration violates your conscience. Again, it is only one more step to "Hey you, Mr. Artist, paint this picture on my wall of Y" and regardless of what Y is, no matter how offensive it is to Mr. Artist, he must paint it.

You can't make people produce a work of art that violates their moral sense or for a celebration that violates their moral sense. These two issues are conflated in this case, but the bottom line is that what I am talking about takes precedence because now you are talking about tyranny and not discrimination. Tyranny can not be the cost of supporting anti-discrimination concepts.


Jim

[seer]

You're asking for an objective answer to a subjective observation. No one said you can't say "merely." Say it all you wish. I'm simply pointing out it is a debate tactic with no content. I trust most people with an understanding of English and debate tactics will see that for what it is.

Carp, if there is no objective way to decide between our differing opinions then it comes down to he said, he said. Talk about no content. That is not a debate tactic it is a fact.

[seer]

"Civil Rights Act of 1964 definition. A federal law that authorised federal action against segregation in public accommodations, public facilities, and employment". A cake shop falls under the category of a "public accommodation", so the personal views of the cake shop owners are irrelevant.

No Tass, sexual orientation is not addressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.