Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

<buzzer> Wrong again Brandon . . .

1.)What Housing Is Covered?

The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/progra...pp/FHLaws/yourrights

Anyone unreasonable enough to think that renting a house is analogous to buying a cake might be able to derive some comfort from that. The rest of us will take joy from the coincidence of this decision with the Easter holiday.

Some have tried to do just that, draw an analogy between two wholly different things, with their attempts to conflate buying an existing cake, or a cake mix in a store, or being served in a restaurant, or renting a room overnight at a hotel/motel, with contracting to have a custom cake made to very individual specifications with a baker.

Don't forget about comparing baking a cake to slavery. Reasonable people recognize that there was a Supreme Court decision decades ago regarding that, don't they?

Let's not forget that the 13th Amendment outlawed much more than slavery Brandon, or were you aware of that fact? It also abolished involuntary servitude, a condition in which a person is compelled to labor for the benefit of someone else under a form of coercion other than the laborer's financial need, say a law forcing them to bake wedding cakes for people they don't want to bake wedding cakes for.

Why is "baking a custom cake" any different that preparing a meal in a diner? The bizzaro distinction that you are attempting is just that bizzaro. The Public Accommodations law in Colorado is quite clear that a bakery is a public accommodation.

The Supreme Court made it very clear that fining someone for failing to adhere to public accommodation laws is not "involuntary servitude". The Constitution does allow the government to force individuals into service that they dislike, such as military draft, jury duty, even school attendance.

Would a reasonable person believe that his layman's opinion was superior to both Supreme Court decisions and State law?

Could someone please explain the double standard in the media? This is actually pretty funny...

Sure thing, here you go.

www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/righties-go...a-gay-wedding-video/

"Right wing sites are having a great time, ripping liberals as they promote a new video of a man trying to order a cake for a same sex wedding from a Muslim bakery. “See,” they’re saying, “liberals are ripping Christians for being bigots, but, look at MOO-slims!!!” Of course, the video fails on several levels...
The video is so heavily edited that it is actually hard to tell what is going on. A gay man, or one who is playing a gay stereotype more likely, tells bakers that he wants a cake for the wedding of two men. One baker does appear to be telling the man that he will not make the cake, but in the other cases it’s not totally clear. In one instance, after the man describes what he wants on the cake, the woman behind the counter appears to say “ok.”...
...owners of Muslim bakeries are subject to the same laws and regulations that Christians are required to follow. So, if a law says that Christians can refuse to serve gay customers, so can Muslims. If the law says that businesses have to serve everyone, both Christians and Muslims have to serve everyone. Crowder seems to miss the point that, had this been a real situation, and not a publicity stunt, those Muslim bakers were probably in violation of the law, as well. That is, if they indeed had all refused to make the cake. Crowder actually undercuts his implied argument about how much less tolerant Muslims are, when he admits that there were many Muslim bakeries that agreed to bake the cake. Which is exactly the same situation with Christian owned bakeries, so what exactly is the point, other than an attempt to smear Muslims?"

The main difference is that the video depicts a staged publicity stunt that, unlike the Azucar stunt, has not risen to the level of a legal action. It's the political equivalent of a fart joke - amusing to weaker minds but ignored by the rest.