The problem, however, is that a court has no business determining....
whether someone's claimed religious objection to an interracial marriage or a same-sex marriage is somehow rational or supported by the tenets of a particular religion. And that is precisely what you are proposing a court should do.
There are indeed people opposed to interracial marriage based on their religion, including Christian sects that point to particular passages in the Bible that they claim support their belief that interracial marriage is wrong in the eyes of God. It's not too hard to find a multitude of website professing such beliefs. You and I might think these people are wacko racists, pulling snippets from the Bible that they claim support their views, but their beliefs certainly seem to be genuine and faith-based.
So why do you think that this should be treated differently than someone opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds? Sure there are more people who believe that gay marriage and homosexuality are morally wrong than those who believe interracial marriage is morally wrong. And perhaps those opposed to gay marriage can find more in the Bible (or Torah or Quran) to support that view. But so what? A court has no business deciding that a religious objection to gay marriage was legitimate, while a religious objection to interracial marriage is not. Yet, that is precisely what you are suggesting:
"Let them challenge declining to be party to an interracial marriage. I doubt they'd be able to convince any court of it. But they're certainly free to try.
But it would be pretty easy, I think, for somebody to declare a religious objection to same-sex marriage."
and:
"I think somebody would probably have a hard time identifying any rational basis for this particular objection. As I told Marvin, there's nothing inherently moral involved in the question of race. Race is not a behavior. It's a physical characteristic.
I suppose somebody could just invent some religious objection to interracial marriage out of thin air. But good luck to them in trying to demonstrate the basis for it. It would not, however, be difficult to demonstrate a basis for a religious objection to same-sex marriage -- starting with any one of the world's 3 major religions and going on from there. Nobody would have to invent that."
Now, courts will investigate faith-based beliefs in many instances in order to determine if someone's belief is sincere and religious in nature. But that's as far as a court may go. A passage from the Supreme Court's 1944 decision in U.S. v. Ballard might be helpful in this regard:
Thus, the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."
Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others.
Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom. The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased, and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. As stated in Davis v. Beason:
"With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with."
So we conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents."
Now, one could, I suppose, craft a very logical argument that someone, say a baker, should have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial marriage or a same-sex marriage, based on a sincere religious belief on the part of the baker.
But, you cannot assert that it's OK to refuse the cake for a same-sex marriage on religious grounds, but not for an interracial marriage on religious grounds because they could not demonstrate some basis for it in a particular religion or otherwise. As long as someone has a sincere religious belief that interracial marriage is wrong, it makes no difference if that belief is based on scripture, or what they were told by aliens via an anal probe.
I should also point out that nothing I have said here is intended to address the other issue of whether gays should be a protected class under federal or state law. That's a different issue.
And for the cake bakers of the world, if you truly are mortified by the thought of baking a wedding cake with two guys (or two girls) on top, I've got an easy solution: stop making wedding cakes. The Constitution protects the free practice of your very own religion--you can even make up your own based on what those aliens taught you. But the Constitution does not protect your right to sell wedding cakes.