Oral arguments were recently held before the supreme court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The discussion was almost exclusively about the 1st amendment's free speech provision and what kinds of business products/services convey a message and therefore should constitute protected speech. The same was true in their petition for certiorari, the replies, and the few amicus briefs I read.
My question is about a few other arguments I expected to hear. The first deals with the religious free exercise clause of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
It was agreed upon by both sides that the baker refused to bake the cake in question on religious grounds. Is there precedent to suggest that a free exercise claim would not have prevailed?
The second argument I expected has to do with the 13th amendment of the United States constitution:
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.
It seems to me that the baker could have argued that being forced to provide a service that he did not want to provide constitutes involuntary servitude. I am aware that this amendment was introduced to end slavery, but I don't believe this changes what those words mean, does it? Is there precedent that suggests that this interpretation is rejected by the courts or that such an argument would not have been successful? The closest case I could find that might address this is Butler v. Perry, but this case doesn't seem to say anything about one citizen working for another, it was about citizens working for the government.