Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission | (No. 16-111) (2018)
Masterpiece Cakeshop versus Colorado Civil Rights Commission was expected to address the conflict between the civil rights of same-sex couples and the First Amendment rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Instead, the Court decided the case on narrow procedural grounds, leaving the big questions for another day.
Jack Phillips, a devout Christian, operated Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, a same-sex couple tried to order a wedding cake from him. But Phillips told them that he wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, believing it to violate his religious beliefs. Philips offered to sell them other baked goods, just not a custom-designed wedding cake.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.com/cases/masterp...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/masterp...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► kzbin.info_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@sensory_deprivation4126]

This is how you create a non-partisan, facts-orientated video without inserting bias. Thank you, this was very well done.

[@theresahall6197]

Personally I always felt that forcing someone to do something they feel is wrong isn't right.

[@anthonypc1]

What, in general?? ? I mean as a freelancer I wouldn’t want to be legally punished if I don’t wanna take a gig doing photography for a wedding service, if I don’t like their traditions, or their faces, or any other reason. But our society needs to hold people accountable for certain obligations... If I Feel it’s wrong to pay any kind of fine for illegal camping or hunting because Mother Nature should be free yadada... should no one make me pay it ? if a religious doctor doesn’t want to treat a dying woman who is a sinner according to the doctor’s religion... there should be no punishment for the doc just letting her meet his maker ? Ok But what if the doc is Really devout ! Then should the strength of his belief outweigh the patient’s death ? Ok less drastic; If I feel it’s morally wrong to cover my body in any clothes on a special day of the week while I shop for groceries... if it’s a city with a legal standard for public exposure, should anyone be allowed to compelle me to put some clothes on, or go home, or get arrested and fined ? If you tried to take your family to every public accommodations restaurant in town and every manager Feels it’s wrong to serve your kind, because they have a sincerely held belief that your race is a kind of subhuman as evidenced by your skulls, and to serve you would be subjecting their superior customers to practically dining beside a family of animals. should there just be nothing you can do about that ?

[@theresahall6197]

@UCNC8HiIFtCXo8fcNJxnPsZw well let's take argument number one do you wish to force into a contract whether you like it or not? Mother nature may be free but the government long ago decided it belongs to them and if you have a problem with that then you should try to change that. A dying woman would be at a hospital with lots of doctors most of the time so someone should be able to handle it. As for the no clothes thing when girls can go topless probably you can have your wish. As for the race thing they have been pushing that button forever and they probably won't let that happen again. I believe we can compromise to a degree in things but the outright do what I want or I'll sic the government on you isn't better.

[@anthonypc1]

I'm a little confused by some sentences here... in case there was some confusion, I meant that a Freelance artist should NOT be compelled to take on a job. as is the case. But I think public accommodations enter into a social contract of an expectation to serve the general public, and a manager has discretion to kick out anyone for any reason that's Not on the basis of a protected inherent identity trait; i.e. gender, race, cultural origin, religion, citizenship, age, disability, veteran status (even tho serving military was a choice, but I'm fine with that exception), and I think sexuality is an inherent human quality which should equally be protected from discrimination, because permitting that damages our society too much to allow it to continue in public institutions, and government, and in establishments open to the public. But you can say No Shoes No Service. Or only let in customers who are attractive, like at a nightclub... and private golf clubs can ban all women from entry, if that's how their members like it. But sure, no one wants people to be able to force others to do whatever they want or sic the govt on them. laws wouldn't even be able to be consistent then, with so many conflicting wants. Only reasonable, important things, that we have a social contract for should be enforceable or have some legal consequence. Negotiating that contract to be most fair and productive is the challenge here. I don't want governments to be able to enforce my personal wish for someone to be my girlfriend... lol or when somebody publishes a book I don't like, like praising Hitler, I don't want the government to ban it like they would it some countries. (I just might boycott that private publisher to express my lack of support.)

[@anthonypc1]

just regarding the picky doctor though... I'm honestly surprised and disturbed that you'd actually defend a doctor's choice to decline emergency treatment for someone because they don't like them... really? That goes against everything doctors stand for, -- the Hippocratic Oath; "First, Do no harm" -- and also it would be illegal for very important reasons. You want people running around finding an alternate doctor to ask their religious preferences to see if they'd be more inclined to treat you, while you're hemorrhaging from pregnancy complications or something ?? (actually maybe I better quit asking you questions I can't predict the answer to haha) let me just say for myself, *I would not want that.* Individuality and personal choice are very valuable. We also have other values we have to compromise that with in certain ways, if we don't want societal chaos. people are entitled to whatever wacky or despicable beliefs we want to express, but we need to prioritize different rights, and when someone else's rights are being infringed by someone's expression in a serious way, that's not acceptable. okay last example: A paranoid schizophrenic person or evangelical preacher who strongly believes demons are coming to get us is free to express that on a soap box or a blog post or youtube video, but when he expresses that belief in a loud sermon in a dark crowded movie theater, and people get scared and risk getting hurt to get out of there because of the modern context of radical crazy shooters, then that expression is Not protected free speech. our freedom speech should not directly infringe on others rights, including safety, or others' ability to speak.

[@theresahall6197]

@@anthonypc1 well the Baker did offer anything on the shelf. He didn't want to part of the ssm and there were plenty of people who take the job. His shop his rules about which jobs get taken. And when you tell people that you are having a ssm well don't be surprised if they aren't overjoyed to work for you.

[@qiuyushi2752]

If the commission allowed Jack to refuse homophobic cakes on the basis that Jack found it deeply offensive to him and refusing the cake to everyone equally regardless of the customer's identity, then Philip didn't do anything wrong. Philip refused to bake a cake expressing support of homosexual marriages, something he found deeply offensive to him. He didn't refuse the couple on the basis of their identity as we see that Philip offered them other goods, just not a gay wedding cake. Philip was refusing on the basis of what the customers wanted, not who the customers are. This shows that Colorado's commission was not treating Jack and Philip equally, therefore violating the free exercise clause.

[@brandoncaldwell2324]

Wrong. You can not hold your business on public land under public accommodation law and refuse one particular product to someone and not the other. You people forget that government exists because we couldn't get along in the first place. The government exists as a middle ground. You have the right to refuse service all together, you do not have the right to offer certain products to one group and not the other.

[@MJM17]

@@brandoncaldwell2324 actually, this is incorrect. First, nearly all American businesses are privately held and reside on private land, not "public land". Simply existing within a state does not mean you hold your business on public land, nor does it necessarily grant the government jurisdiction over you and your actions. Across the entire US, there are innumerable things that one can do on private property that are prohibited on public land because the government is severely limited in what they can and cannot tell you to do on private property. Second, the statement that "you cannot... refuse one particular product to someone and not the other" is patently absurd and based in opinion rather than law. Twenty states prohibit discrimination based on age while at the same time limiting the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms according to a person's age. In many places, restaurants and bars can sell alcohol to sober adults over the age of 21, but they cannot continue to sell alcohol to anyone they believe is inebriated. Now consider this particular case. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is only illegal in 25 and 24 states, respectively. Five states (AL, GA, MS, NC, TX) have no public accommodation law for nondisabled individuals. Third, the sole purpose of public accommodation law is to protect certain individuals' access to goods and services by prohibiting discrimination. Unfortunately, these laws are now being wielded to legalize a type of reverse discrimination and elevate certain rights over others. While you technically have "the right to refuse service all together", that only remains true if your reason for refusing isn't deemed discriminatory. In the case of Jack Phillips, he did not discriminate against the couple because they were gay. He didn't even refuse to serve them. The specific couple were previous customers of his, he regularly served other LGBTQ people, and he had employees who were gay. Mr. Philips even offered to sell them a non-designed cake. He only objected to designing a cake specifically for their wedding because he believed that would make him a willing participant in their marriage which violated his religious beliefs. He also refused to make Halloween cakes, lewd bachelor party cakes, and even cakes for divorce parties -- all because the artistic messages violated his conscience. This couple decided that was unacceptable and spent the next five years trying to ruin Mr. Phillips' life and impoverish him and his family. Finally, government doesn't exist because we couldn't get along. As stated in the Declaration, "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Government exists to equally secure the basic rights of all men, not to subjugate the rights of some to those of others. A government only has this power if we allow it. I, for one, will not.

[@dunstvangeet1500]

You've got two completely different cases here, as pointed out by Justice Kagan. In the Jack cases, the cake was all about the decoration of the cake. The decision not to make the cake had to do with the decoration of the cake, a decoration that they wouldn't make for anybody, no matter the religion of the person. So, them refusing to make Jack a cake decorated in that way was not actually a differentiation in service, but not offering a product that they don't make. In contrast, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it was all about the customer. Mr. Phillips refused to make a cake for a gay couple that he would have made for a straight couple. The differential between whether or not Mr. Phillips would have made the cake wasn't how the cake was decorated (decoration of the cake played no affect into Mr. Phillips refusal. Before any decoration could be discussed, Mr. Phillips refused), but upon the sexual orientation and gender of the clients. That is a differentiation of service based upon sexual orientation and gender. If Mr. Phillips doesn't want to offer certain designs, that's find, and his perrogatives. However, he cannot refuse to make a gay couple the same cakes that he would make a straight couple. The Jack cases were about the decoration of the cake. The Phillips case was about who the customer was, not the decoration of the cake.

[@dunstvangeet1500]

@@MJM17 You state: "Second, the statement that "you cannot... refuse one particular product to someone and not the other" is patently absurd and based in opinion rather than law". Actually, what you're stating is actually patently absurb. Both the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act both require the "full and equal enjoyment" of the products, services, etc. You cannot differentiate your service on the basis of one of the protected categories, in this case: sexual orientaiton and gender (which per the Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County are the same thing, basically). Since 45 states actually have public accommodations laws which protect on the basis of gender, it could easily be argued that because of Bostock v. Clayton County, those laws now also bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. So, your argument that "Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is only illegal in 25 and 24 states, respectively" doesn't actually reflect the current state basis. Bostock v. Clayton County made Sexual Oreintation, Gender Identity, and Gender Discrimination the same thing. You cannot go to a black person, "Black people can only order the watermelon in my restaurant. The lobster is only for white people." That's a differentiation of goods and services on the basis of race. Black people get to have the full and equal enjoyment of all the goods and services in the public accommodation. And if a bakery makes wedding cakes, then they cannot refuse to sell those wedding cakes to gay couples. Mr. Phillips did not offer to sell them a non-designed cake. He blatently refused any wedding cake, no matter how it was decorated, to the gay couple. Before any decoration of the cake was discussed, Mr. Phillips refused the order, saying, "I don't do gay weddings." And he only said that they were free to have anything other than a cake. Mr. Phillips is required to offer the full and equal enjoyment of all his services. He's previously stated that Wedding Cakes make up about 1/3rd of his business. 67% of the business doesn't seem like the full and equal enjoyment to me. Mr. Phillips is free to refuse to make Halloween cakes, lewd bachelor party cakes, and even cakes for divorce parties, as long as he doesn't differentiate his service on the basis of sexual orientation. However, if he offers a product or service to straight couples, he must also that same product and service to gay couples. To do otherwise would be differentiating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender, which is blatently illegal under Colorado Law. The only thing that makes a "gay wedding cake" a "gay wedding cake" is the sexual orientation and gender of the couple buying it.

[@midapita]

@@dunstvangeet1500 wait, can I get a link or source about Philips refusing before the design was even proposed to him?

[@user-dy8bd2qx9x]

This really helped me understand the case much better. "Just reading it" still had me a bit confused, so I came to KZbin! Thanks!

[@tobiasproos3490]

Great video, will definetly recommend to others!

[@anthonypc1]

Hey these law videos are great. Hope your channel gets more views soon !

[@yellowmarshmellowgang]

appreciate the help on my school project

[@jud01005]

Great video. I’d like to add this is a civil liberty issue, not civil rights.

[@SandyTheDesertFox]

As a gay person and an artist i find this case incredibly difficult. Of course the idea of not being served by a store because of my sexuality is rather upsetting, but setting a precedent where artists like me are not allowed to refuse a job that expresses what we believe to be a harmful message is scary, for example i wouldn't want to produce a piece that expresses anti-gay views. Either way you can set a harmful precedent.

[@joestupid2571]

You can go to a different cake store. Simple. I don't like Michael's gay pride stuff, so I go to Hobby Lobby.

[@saklee1777]

the owner of a shop has the right to not sell certain things if they don’t wanna.

[@dunstvangeet1500]

@@saklee1777 Yes, but they don't have the right to refuse to serve certain customers. Mr. Phillips has no problem making wedding cakes. He makes wedding cakes all the time. However, what he has the problem with is making wedding cakes for gay couples. The only thing differentiating a "gay wedding cake" from a "straight wedding cake" is the sexual orientation and gender of the couple.

[@96Jazangel]

@@dunstvangeet1500 It was the type of cake he was asked to make. He has every right to decline. Just as that couple has every right to be married and find another cake maker.

[@dunstvangeet1500]

@@96Jazangel The problem is that he has no problem making wedding cakes. He makes wedding cakes all the time. He was asked to make a wedding cake. He has no right to make a wedding cake for straight couples, and refuse to make those exact same wedding cakes for gay couples. He must provide the full and equal enjoyment of all his products, services, etc. of his bakery. If he doesn't want to make wedding cakes period, that is one thing, and that would not be a differentiation in products or services. However, what he can't do is differentiate his services on the basis of the sexual orientation and gender of the customer. That would be illegal discrimination.

[@MrStoyan5]

2:12 When historical facts are seen as non-neutral and disparaging, then you have a BIG problem

[@CMCSS-to3to]

Either both ways of none I guess

[@rifkinr4660]

this is actually impartial. As someone who is against this decision due to its discriminatory backgrounds of the Cakeshop, I actually like this vid's explanation.

[@lumanate1493]

But was it discrimination? The legal definition is to “single out”. The baker did not single out. He did not put a sign on his door saying “no homosexuals allowed”. Quite the opposite he said they were welcome to anything in his shop except a custom cake

[@joestupid2571]

@jfsfrnd against his religion to recognize or celebrate homosexuality. Court was right. I applaud the.

[@dunstvangeet1500]

@@lumanate1493 You have an odd definition. No, the legal definition is not to single out. It's a differentiation of service which was made on the basis of a protected class. Mr. Phillips makes wedding cakes. He is very pround of the wedding cakes he does. However, he only sells those wedding cakes to straight couples, and refuses to let gay couples buy those same wedding cakes. That is a differentiation of service on the basis of sexual orientation. Mr. Phillips, by law, is required to provide the "full and equal enjoyment" of his goods and services. If he provides a good or service to straight couples, then him refusing those same goods and services to gay couples is not allowing the "full and equal enjoyment" of his goods or services. You seem to be under the impression that people are allowed to differentiate their service, just as long as they're willing to sell everybody something. According to you, if the shop is willing to sell them something, then it cannot be discrimination when they refuse to allow them to buy something else. Just because he's willing to serve them in other aspects of his business does not mean that he is allowed to discriminate against them in other aspects. To give another example. Would a restaurant allowing blacks to go around back and order take-out from the kitchen allievate the need for them to serve them in the dining room? Or would the fact that they're not receiveing the same and equal service from this restaurant mean that it is discrimination?

[@lumanate1493]

@@dunstvangeet1500 its not differentiating service to people rather towards phrases. Mr. Philips informed the gay couple that they were allowed to buy anything in the shop and custom order anything they wanted with the exception of phrases that went against his faith. This standard would equally apply to a straight couple. As we saw in the months after this trial Mr. Philips was bombarded with custom requests that had homosexual phrases. He refused all of them regardless of their sex, sexual orientation and race (three things the civil rights act 1964 protects as of 2022). Saying gay people can’t shop at all (discrimination) and saying Philips has a right to refuse certain phrases are two different things. That is what the supreme court decision pointed out. The same would apply had white supremacist customers wanted a person of color to write vulgar phrases on a cake.

[@dunstvangeet1500]

@@lumanate1493 That's not true, and you know it. I have studied this case, and your fact pattern is completely contradictory. There was no discussion on the decoration of the cake, period. It was a simple "We'd like a wedding cake for our wedding" "I'm sorry, but I don't do gay weddings." Not once did the couple actually ask for anything that had homosexual phrases on them. There was absolutely no discussion about the decoration of the cake. This is exactly what Mr. Phillips said when he responded to the discrimination complaint. This is supposedly appointing him in the best light: "I introduced myself to them, and they did the same. I sat down across from them and I believe Mr. Mullins said he needed a wedding cake or he was there to pick out a wedding cake. Mr. Craig quickly added that it was for their wedding. I quickly responded that I do not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings at which time both men stood up and exited the store through different doors. There may have been a moment where the three of us were talking over each other, and I think I stated that I could create birthday cakes, shower cakes or any other cakes for them. The entire interaction lasted no more than 20 seconds." Those are Mr. Phillips own words describing the event. Please show me exactly where Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins asked for "phrases that went against his faith" as you put it in your response. You're adding things into the story that simply are not there.

[@saklee1777]

2:13 how hypocritical. they say that religion has been used to justify discrimination. but then why don’t they count saying something like that is discriminating against religious people?

[@Henry-bl1dp]

Someone tell me who da fuck won my project is due tomorrow

[@DerekWilliamsMusic]

Too late for your project, but nobody won on the discrimination matter yet. That has to return to the Colorado courts to be reheard.

[@rpicard6741]

This crap pisses me off, aren't the two gay's discriminating against the shop owners beliefs? Why do they do they feel the need to force the whole world into excepting their life style? And what about the sign in all stores that says"We have the right to refuse service" This world is Sodom and Gomorrah times 2.

[@crusader3400]

I KNOW RIGHT!!!!!!! I understand why God threw flaming boulders at it... it's just sickening

[@joestupid2571]

Absolutely right 100%.

[@grace_mar]

it surely is! maybe that's why your god is fake af

[@stinger59605]

I see how you feel, let me explain why people were so against this If you refuse service to a black man because they are black, that’s objectively wrong since you can’t change your skin color. Same for a woman and her gender. Gays are the same way since despite some arguments saying the opposite, there is no evidence to support the claim that sexuality is a choice. While I do agree that the amount of hate he got was completely unjustified, it’s still a form of discrimination to deny service to someone based off of something they can’t change.

[@DanT-godofpain]

They were not discriminating against the shop owner. There were no signs posted in the store at the time.

[@DerekWilliamsMusic]

Over 40 million Americans believe that marriage between people of different race is "always wrong", many on religious grounds. A baker would accordingly have the right to refuse wedding services to a mixed-race couple. The only difference between a same-race wedding and a mixed-race wedding is the race of the couple. In the same sense, the only difference between a same-sex wedding and an opposite-sex wedding is the sexual orientation of the couple. It's discrimination all right, in both cases, and under Public Accommodations law in Colorado, it's illegal in both cases. Phillips is entitled to his religious belief, but he is not entitled to force it on his (in this case) unsuspecting customers. And he is trying to shame gay couples in front of other customers. Saying "I don't make wedding cakes for gays" is clearly shaming them. And he could have at least had the decency to put up a sign saying "Custom wedding cakes in this store are Christian cakes, reserved for heterosexual couples only." Why didn't he put up such a sign? Then the gay couple could have gone elsewhere without even going in to the store in the first place. Same with the mixed-race couples, at least put up a sign saying they don't supply wedding services to couples of different race. Or who are of different religion - e.g. marriage between Jews and Gentiles, Catholics and Protestants, Muslims and non-Muslims. Once you allow one sort of discrimination, there is no rational reason not to allow all the others. There is a case to be made for allowing the free market to reign, and legalising ALL forms of discrimination, but that would require repeal of the Civil Rights Act 1964, and all anti-discrimination ordinances in the 20 states that have them, including Colorado.

[@lumanate1493]

You must have not read the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the Civil Rights Act it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or nationality. The legal definition of discrimination is to single out. Lets pose the hypothetical that it was intermarriage Phillip’s instead of sexual orientation. Phillip’s STILL did not single out. He told the couple they were welcome both inside and to any of the goods inside of his shop. “Custom” cakes constitute freedom of expression. The cakes are expressing a message. On the other side of your hypothetical you would never be able to refuse service at all. Say a kkk member comes in and wants a cake that reads “white power” if you are going to broadly interprt the civil rights act here than you’ve just opened a huge can of worms The reason for refusal was the contents of the cake not the people. If a straight couple came in and asked for the same cake he would have equally refused.

[@DerekWilliamsMusic]

@@lumanate1493 The KKK cake would be refused to EVERYBODY, not just to blacks, or to whites or to gays or to straights. Same applies to Kosher and Halal butchers, neither of whom sell pork, for religious reasons. However, what they DO sell, even Blacks, Jews and LGBT+ people can buy there. They do not discriminate. But let's say that one day, they suddenly started selling pork, but only to white customers, while refusing it to black customers. That would be discrimination. Same applies to wedding services. Phillips singles out LGBT+ customers for refusal of his wedding services. If baking a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding is "expressing a message" then so too is baking a cake for a mixed-race couple's wedding. Heterosexual couples do not have to phone around every baker, florist, printer and photographer in the city until they can find one who approves of their choice of spouse, so why should LGBT+ people have to that very thing? You mention that Phillips offered the gay couple other products, in other words, a lesser service. That is analogous to a car rental company saying to a mixed-race couple who want to rent the best car in the showroom for their wedding that they cannot rent the Rolls-Royce, however, you would happily rent them a Ford Escort. The message is, "'those people' aren't good enough to receive my premium service". It's essentially a belief in their inherent inferiority. Here's the thing: Phillips stated several times that "all weddings are religious". In other words, even an atheist couple getting married in a non-religious ceremony at the State Registry Office are having a "religious wedding", according to him. He also said, "all my wedding cakes are religious". Well, I'm sorry, but that isn't part of running a business open to the general public. If every wedding product Phillips makes is religious, then he should sell through his church. Why should I be forced to participate in his religion merely by shopping there? As above, there isn't even a sign on his store warning potential customers that they're buying religious cakes, or that gay couples will be refused wedding services. I think he WANTS them to come into his store, so he can refuse them to their face and proselytize. Moreover, since ALL his wedding cakes are religious, according to him, then if he ultimately wins his discrimination case, he can refuse THOSE to the gay couple too, even if he was willing to sell them lesser wedding products before.

[@crusader3400]

@@DerekWilliamsMusic XD weather everybody would refuse a kkk cake or only one has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this case XD.

[@workhourse1316]

@@DerekWilliamsMusic "Why should I be forced to participate in his religion merely by shopping there?" No one is being forced. Go to another baker. Bad business decision by Phillips but why waste time with it - vote against him by spending your money elsewhere.

[@DerekWilliamsMusic]

@@workhourse1316 If you're in a one horse town, and he's the only baker in town, then you are forced to drive 140 miles to the next small town, where their exercise of 'religious freedom to discriminate against disliked minorities' may likewise be in force. Heterosexual people don't have to "go to another bakery" because no-one, repeat NO-ONE, refuses service on the grounds of their heterosexual orientation. If you support Phillips' right to refuse a same-sex couple because his religious belief says he shouldn't serve them, then you must logically support a business's right to refuse a mixed-race couple, if their religious belief says they shouldn't be served. Just so you know, according to the most recent YouGov poll on interacial marraige, 20% of Americans (= 65 million) believe marriage between people of different race is wrong. A 2013 Gallup Poll had this at 13% (over 42 million). Let me put your argument back to you: if you can't serve everybody equally and without discrimination, then why waste time with it - go start another business where you CAN serve everyone equally and without discrimination.

[@Randy58-zn4ez]

Religious beliefs are ignorant primitive superstition and have no place in our government. We should tax the churches, why do they get over 75 billion in tax breaks every year.