That’s an odd hypothetical, and I do not in any way see how it relates. But sure, if your state passes that law, and it is somehow held as constitutional, then that is the law you have to follow. This is more than just compelling speech, this is limiting speech.
I could get around the prohibition by having menus with pictures on them. No one need speak english at all. Speech is not compelled. That all other languages are prohibited is a limitation on speech. I do not think it would be held as constitutional for that reason.
So, I really don’t see how your hypothetical, which involves limiting speech, relates to the case we are talking about, which is ostensibly “compelling speech”.
Indeed. This isn’t my going to Subway in a hijab and the sandwich artist saying, “I’m sorry, my religion forbids me to serve Muslims, so I must put bacon on your sandwich, its artistry is an expression of my religion.” This is my going to Subway in a hijab and the sandwich artist saying, “I’m sorry, my religion disapproves of Islam, so I can’t use my god-given sandwich artistry to make you a sandwich to order–either grab something from the to-go case or else I’ve told Jersey Mikes to expect you.”
If the cake is made with buttercream, then, yes, it is sacred.
Later, a Buddhist sect finally convinces a Jewish Family Bakery to make a cake for their religious ceremony. The cake has a swastika representing good fortune. Later than that, a neo-Nazi enters the same bakery and asks for the same cake for their convention…
And then asks, “Do you deliver?”
To not make this a drive-by/trolling: That would be So difficult! Personal beliefs getting in the way just doesn’t quite express that situation.
I feel that, if you find the establishment doesn’t want to serve you then you should go elsewhere. You would get better service from a place that Wanted your business and everyone would be more satisfied. But, that’s easy when there are 'elsewhere’s to which to go.
In this case I think you would just have to grit your teeth and make the cake (without spit), and hold your head high as you delivered it, in tallit and kippah.
Black people used to have a book that let them know what places they weren’t welcome and what other places they could get gas, hotel lodgings, food etc. I say we shouldn’t go back to that kind of thing.
Yes, in this particular case, that is true, and so the baker is certainly in the wrong.
But it is possible to imagine a situation in which the cake making implies some sort of endorsement. It is not obvious to me if a Christian baker should be able to refuse to produce a same sex design, or a Muslim baker refuse a “Jesus is Lord” request.
It is a distinction without importance. The comparatively temporary nature of wedding cakes compared to paintings or other forms of art has no place in the discussion.
If, instead of a baker, the lawsuit centered around a singer who refused on religious grounds to perform at a gay wedding, would the ephemeral nature of live music matter one tiny bit?
but your answer was kinda obtuse. Here’s another difference: ones made with paint and the other with flour. One starts with the letter “p”. One sits comfortably in frame. Bam, I just totally schooled that guy who thought cakes were the same as paintings.
When was the last time a gay person got beat up by a wedding cake baker for going to the wrong bakery?
Merchants are allowed to discriminate for many reasons, not just “I don’t want to bake a gay wedding cake”. So this isn’t really breaking any new ground. In fact, forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes is breaking new ground, so keeping the status quo is not “going back” to anything.
This is not Jim Crow, and gays aren’t going to need a “Sundown Book” if this ruling stands. There are rational arguments to be made against this type of ruling, but that isn’t one of them since it just does not follow.
You keep trying to pick this argument with me. I offered several other distinctions in that post yet you are laser focused on this one. Do you, in fact, believe that cakes are exactly the same as paintings. If not, then we do not disagree. I am making no other point here. I am not the argument you are looking for…
I submit that the cake maker is not making an endorsement regardless of what is put on the cake.
If she makes a cake that says, “Congrats to Joe…the best pipe fitter in Bakersfield!” is she making an endorsement that Joe is, in fact, the best pipe fitter in Bakersfield? Would you expect other pipe fitters who think they are better than Joe to hold the baker accountable for making that cake?
Or is it that she is just baking a cake and putting a message on there for someone else and she in no way is endorsing the statement on the cake?
ISTM that the people trying to force their opinions on others is not the baker, who offered to refer the gay couple to someone else for a generic cake, but the gay couple who filed the complaint because they wanted that particular baker to bake the cake.
“I want bacon on my sub.”
“I am Muslim, so I can’t handle pork, but Joe here will be happy to assist you.”
Do you want me to agree that cakes are exactly the same as paintings or something? I can’t do that, they are clearly distinct things. Words mean things. I’m not really arguing with anyone. Consider me dropping the hijack then, but I won’t admit that cakes and paintings are indistinct from each other. I cannot fathom how anything I’ve said is the least bit controversial here.
So what happens if the Supreme Court rules that cakes are not artistic expressions? Is this decision then automatically voided, or does it get automatically appealed, or do the litigants need to appeal it themselves?
I cannot say for certain but my guess is the couple brought the case because they were pissed at the discrimination and not because they just had to have Cathy, and ONLY Cathy, make a cake for them.
I dunno though…maybe Cathy’s cakes are the best cakes in the whole world and nothing else would suffice.