Can a religious baker refuse service to an underage couple-to-be, in accordance with his deeply-held religious beliefs? As previously asked, bakers in certain US states can legally refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation. For the purposes of this question, assume that the state is Colorado. Child marriage is legal in 48 states (all except New Jersey and Delaware) - in 48 states, minors under 18 can marry with parental consent, even in the absence of their own consent, and irrespective of the age of their spouse-to-be. As an example, I am not a baker, but I personally belong to a religion in which you generally need to be 21 to marry, and our leadership won't even consider it unless both partners are at least 18. Marriage before 21, and definitely before 18, is fundamentally against my deeply-held religious beliefs. Now let's suppose that I own a bakery. A couple comes in to my bakery to order a custom wedding cake, similar to the Masterpiece situation. One or both members of the couple are under the age of 18. Can I call on my religious freedom to refuse service to this couple?
As cited by @xuhdev, discrimination on the basis of marital status is prohibited in Colorado. And, even though age is not on the list, the couple could claim that you discriminate them based on their marital status, whether current or would-be, and whether related to their age or not. Note that the reason why you discriminate is irrelevant: whether you do it by calling on your religious freedom or without giving any reasons at all does not make any difference. Holding religious beliefs is by no means a lawful excuse for discrimination, no matter how deeply they are held.
Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 held that "A party's religious belief cannot be accepted as a justification for his committing an overt act, made criminal by the law of the land". Employment v. Smith 494 US 872 applies this to criminal acts, holding that "The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use" and "the [Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons". Likewise Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah 508 US 520 "a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability" (the ordinances were not narrowly taylored, unlike murder statutes). Thus laws against murder do not become unconstitutional when one proclaims a religious basis for violating the law, since they are religiously neutral and are there for good reason.
What that church is doing is legal. There is a statutory exception in the Fair Housing Act for religious and non-profit organizations. 42 U.S. Code § 3607 - Religious organization or private club exemption Nothing in this subchapter shall prohibit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, from limiting the sale, rental or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion, or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of race, color, or national origin. Nor shall anything in this subchapter prohibit a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodgings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodgings to its members or from giving preference to its members.
The First Amendment does not guarantee a right to not be offended. However, as held in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), it does prohibit compelled speech, and a person cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. The basis is not religion: this is a general prohibition on what the government can do. ("Parental consent" comes through the school informing parents of the right to not recite the pledge, and a parent who objects will tell their child to not recite the pledge, thus consent is implicit for those parents whose children do recite -- unless the child's actions don't reflect the parents' intent).
Criminal Code 293 outlaws polygamy and bigamy, and identifies as an offender Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii) In other words, it is against the law to go through the ceremony with multiple partners, and to "enter into a conjugal union", even if not solemnized in any particular fashion. "Common law marriage" is broadly recognized in Canada (except in Quebec), with specific details governed by the province. This too is a case where people who "act as if" married are treated as actually married, given certain circumstances (which exist in a polygamous marriage). The question of having children is not relevant to the law, indeed having sex is not a requirement for something to be deemed a polygamous marriage, and the law against polygamy also says nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse. In this particular case, we do not know the specific details, but it is reasonable to assume that there was no posturing or faking, and there were multiple solemnization ceremonies, so the polygamy is overt. The claim is that it is constitutionally protected.
Your beliefs about your past and your mission would probably be considered to be personal religious beliefs. As Israel does not have a state religion this does not have any legal significance (except it may make a difference as to which religious court is considered to have jurisdiction over your family disputes). Your religious beliefs do not override the law, because otherwise anyone could make anything legal for themselves just by declaring a belief that it was moral. Hence you will be subject to all the same laws as everyone else. If you break the law and claim your beliefs as justification then you may be judged unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity and committed to a mental hospital.
The constitutional protection afforded people in the United States for freedom of association is protection from interference by the government and its agents. Until the age of majority, or emancipation by a court of law, parents enjoy broad discretion over the activities of their children including with whom they can associate. Complexities do arise for children of divorced parents who disagree as to who can set the characteristics of how the children are raised. In these cases family court intervention is used to deem what's in the best interest of the child. Complexities can also arise for children facing medical treatment. The most common example would be a parent attempting to refuse specific care for their child. In these cases it's possible to get a court to deem the parents "unfit" in order to force the medical treatment to go forward. This is usually a high-bar to achieve as the courts don't want to interfere in the parent-child relationship unless there is no other choice. Such medical treatment can also apply to mental-health services. New York, as an example, allows the local commissioner of social services or local commissioner of health to give consent for medical, dental, health and hospital services for any child found by the family court to be an abused, neglected or destitute child. Oklahoma created the Parent's Bill of Rights (same link as above) which: prohibited the state from infringing upon parental rights, directed the board of education of a school district to develop a policy listing parental rights related to education, including sex education; prohibited a surgical procedure on a minor without parental consent—excluding abortion— and, prohibited a mental health evaluation of a minor without parental consent. You will find that it will take court intervention to interfere with parental discretion and that court intervention will likely need to find the parents unfit to make the decision. Assuming the advocacy groups you outline in your question are not providing medical care it is extremely unlikely that a court will interfere. The right of association is not implicated in your question because it is not the government preventing the child from participating.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. One can be served according to the state law or: (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized None of those would apply to your facts. Thus you would have to find some jurisdiction that would allow service of process under your fact. I dare say that none will and that due process would come into play. In NJ, due process applies and service may be made (1) Upon a competent individual of the age of 14 or over, by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally, or by leaving a copy thereof at the individual's dwelling place or usual place of abode with a competent member of the household of the age of 14 or over then residing therein, or by delivering a copy thereof to a person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on the individual's behalf; It has to be the current place of abode.