Is "Bake That Cake" A Violation of The 13th Amendment?

Hello folks. Long time no post. I know. I don't get paid to do these posts so when time isn't available I don't post. Since I'm not going for cheap clicks by making inane commentary on the most recent event, I post only when I have had a chance to digest an issue, research it, if necessary and then post on it.

I'd comment on the impeachment fiasco but until there is an actual trial in the Senate there's not much to say. There has been no crime alleged. Impeachment requires a crime (misdemeanor or high crime, which I assume to mean felony). None has been alleged. "Improper" is not a crime. "Uncomfortable" is not a crime. The people who have come forward thus far have made claims that reverse the order of things. Intelligence agencies report to the president, who sets national priorities, not the other way around. So Trump doing something that an unelected agent is "uncomfortable with" is not a crime. So keep that in mind when watching or reading anything in regards to impeachment. Recall (if old enough) that Clinton was impeached because he lied to investigators in regards to Monica. The lie got him impeached because the lie was a crime. Nixon was similarly under investigation because an actual crime was committed that implicated him. Neither of these applies to Trump. I do believe that the Democrats are attempting to get a "process crime", a-la Flynn. Whether Trump falls into that trap remains to be seen.

Anyway, onto the subject at hand. So over the weekend, I was reading about yet another case where a state was trying to get a Christian creative professional to do some work for a homosexual organization and/or event. It's pretty clear that these organizations and the state are purposely targetting Christian businesses and the Fed needs to step in. The states where these clear violations of the 1st amendment are taking place are using so-called "anti-discrimination" laws in order to run around the 1st. Such that even if you don't blanket deny services to a homosexual, the simple fact that you decline to do a particular service for a homosexual or on behalf of homosexuals, you have thereby violated the right of the homosexual to have you do work for them or on their behalf.

Thus far the arguments I have seen have rested on the 1st Amendment prohibition against that state abridging free speech and against the state compelling speech. The second argument has been the 14th Amendment of states required to make sure all laws are equally applied (equal protection) to all citizens.

The 1964 Civil Rights act circumvents the 14th Amendment because it designates and allows "protected classes" of citizens Who can get the state to sue on their behalf any organization or citizen whom they think has violated their civil rights.

What I haven't seen raised, and perhaps I missed it, is a direct argument against involuntary servitude. It's been alluded to in terms of "compelled speech" which is another way of saying "involuntary speech", but I have not seen a direct argument that no customer of a business can demand that the owner of that business perform labour which he or she does not want to perform.

So for example, I had a car that I thought had a bad drive shaft. The car was 20 years old at the time and I took it to a specialist. We took it for a test drive so he could hear the sounds I thought were indicative of the problem. After the drive he said to me that he declined to do the work.

I was annoyed but it was his business and his labour (or those of his mechanics whom he is obliged to pay) and I couldn't force him to work on my car even though that was what his business was and even if the job would not fix the problem, it was my money to waste if I so chose.

The 13th Amendment states:

SECTION 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

SECTION 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You'll note that the 13th not only abolishes slavery but it also abolishes involuntary servitude. That is in recognition that one can be forced to do labour while not being the property/Chattel (slave) of a person (or legal entity).

So the question here is, if a shop owner declines to "bake that cake" for the homosexual wedding, isn't the customer who demands that he does it, attempting to extract involuntary servitude? And, when the state steps in with its monopoly on legal deadly force on the side of the "customer" to force the baker to "bake that cake", isn't the state attempting to enforce involuntary servitude on the baker?

Can the state pass legislation that effectively stipulates involuntary servitude as a condition of being able to operate a public business?

And no, just because one is being paid doesn't make it any less involuntary. If the customer pulled a gun and put it to the baker's head to demand the cake (yes a total exaggeration, but take the walk with me), and after the cake is made, pays the baker would we consider that "voluntary"?

Again, I'm not sure if lawyers for the various companies and organizations have looked into this but if not I think they should. I know there are large legal implications of this argument, particularly around civil rights legislation but that should not stop looking into this.