# Commercial Establishment Refusing to Provide Message They Object to **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860 "2016-10-27T17:24:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/101 "2016-10-31T04:44:46Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > [Quote=t-bonham@scc.net] > > For heaven’s sake! Didn’t we go through this 50 years ago, with segregated businesses refusing to serve blacks? > > And US Courts have pretty much a settled outlook on this: if you are operating a public business, you have to serve all members of the public. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t open a business. > So if only those lunch counters in 1960 North Carolinas had thought to say _“Unlike the generic hamburgers sold by McDonalds, every hamburger here is customized to the order of the customer”_, then they could have got away with refusing to serve those black customers? > > 55 years later, it’s still astonishing to what nitpicking extents people will go to just to defend their bigotry. You do realize there is a difference between a commodity product and a custom message? Go to a Christian church and compel them to say some Buddhists prayers for you. Let us know how it works out. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/102 "2016-10-31T06:00:42Z")
The issue to me is whether the restrictions on the message would unduly affect a protected class more than another. Sure, if you have a “no political message” policy, that’s fine. Or even that you won’t make a pro- or anti-gay cake. But I don’t think it’s okay to refuse to make pro-gay cakes but allow anti-gay ones. I think this is the balance required for freedom of speech and the fact that this is a business open to to the public is not allowed to treat a protected class differently. The cake writer alone is not speaking, after all. It is the cake writer and the customer. (Also, since this is outside the U.S. I’d be perfectly happy with a law that made bigoted speech not protected speech, and thus anyone could refuse a bigoted message without refusing the corresponding non-bigoted one.) ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/103 "2016-10-31T06:28:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The issue to me is whether the restrictions on the message would unduly affect a protected class more than another. Sure, if you have a “no political message” policy, that’s fine. Or even that you won’t make a pro- or anti-gay cake. But I don’t think it’s okay to refuse to make pro-gay cakes but allow anti-gay ones… This is indeed what the judgment said, and I think it’s wrong. I’m really struggling how (if this were the US) that you would reconcile this with freedom of speech. It implies that an exclusively Christian bookstore is illegal, since there is anti-gay content in the bible. It means that the KKK cannot sell tee-shirts with racist slogans unless they also sell tee-shirts with anti-racist slogans. Is that really the way we want to go? To me, the law should be preventing discrimination against the protected classes doing things: staying in a hotel; buying a cake for their wedding that’s decorated with their names. The government and the law should not be trying to make the entire nation a “safe space” where the protected classes are protected from hearing the opinions of bigots, even if those opinions are despicable. Nor should it be forcing any bigot to express an opinion he doesn’t espouse; only preventing a bigot from discriminating against a protected class in what they can do or what service they can obtain. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/104 "2016-10-31T10:56:01Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If the shop will put “Tom & Sue’s wedding” on a cake, they must be willing to put “Tom & Frank’s wedding” on a cake too. But the shop should not be forced to print a cake expressing the generalized view “gay marriage is awesome”. This makes sense to me. And likewise, the shop should not be forced to print a cake expressing the generalized view “gay marriage is bad”. I find the religious arguments weaker than just allowing people to be jerks. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/105 "2016-10-31T12:51:06Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Does that mean the bakers should take unruly children beyond the gates of the city and stone them? > Do these bakers also refrain from eating seafood? > Etc. > > I tend to find that this arguement is rather disinginuous when the person in question picks and chooses what religious rules to follow. Every person on earth, barring the very young or profoundly mentally disabled, picks and chooses what religious rules to follow. I, for example, pick not to follow any of them (although I follow non-religious rules some of which have similar structures). **Bricker** picks the Catholic rules to follow, ignoring many of the Shinto rules. Some sets of religious rules are codified into religious traditions. And when enough people disagree with which specific ones they want to follow, you get a schism. For folks who agree with this decision, I can see two paths toward agreement with it: 1. Certain messages are protected messages, while others are not. A baker can’t be forced to write, “Gay people sin against God” on a cake, but can be required to write, “Support Gay Marriage” on a cake. 2. All messages are protected messages: anti-gay, pro-gay, even anti-this-bakery. You want me to write, “Dorkness Bakery Cakes Taste Like Vomit” on my chocolate cake? I better do it, or I’m getting sued. Both positions are problematic. If there’s a third position, can someone explain it to me? ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/106 "2016-10-31T13:48:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > For folks who agree with this decision, I can see two paths toward agreement with it: > > 1. Certain messages are protected messages, while others are not. A baker can’t be forced to write, “Gay people sin against God” on a cake, but can be required to write, “Support Gay Marriage” on a cake. > 2. All messages are protected messages: anti-gay, pro-gay, even anti-this-bakery. You want me to write, “Dorkness Bakery Cakes Taste Like Vomit” on my chocolate cake? I better do it, or I’m getting sued. > > Both positions are problematic. If there’s a third position, can someone explain it to me? Surely it’s: 1. No messages are protected messages. Bakers can refuse or accept commissions as they wish without fear of legal repercussions; conversely, customers who can’t find a willing baker are shit out of luck. That’s problematic too, although the extent will vary. In large cities blessed with a multitude of bakers, customers can expect to find someone else to decorate their cake easily enough. In smaller communities (like, say, the small towns of Northern Ireland) the refusal of a local baker to accept a commission will result in some additional burden of cost and/or travel to find a more accommodating business. In the extreme, members of minority or protected classes in small or isolated communities will be largely dependent on the goodwill of the local bakery. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/107 "2016-10-31T14:13:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > For folks who agree with this decision, I can see two paths toward agreement with it: > > 1. Certain messages are protected messages, while others are not. A baker can’t be forced to write, “Gay people sin against God” on a cake, but can be required to write, “Support Gay Marriage” on a cake. > 2. All messages are protected messages: anti-gay, pro-gay, even anti-this-bakery. You want me to write, “Dorkness Bakery Cakes Taste Like Vomit” on my chocolate cake? I better do it, or I’m getting sued. > > Both positions are problematic. If there’s a third position, can someone explain it to me? > [@Stanislaus](#): > > Surely it’s: > > 1. No messages are protected messages. Bakers can refuse or accept commissions as they wish without fear of legal repercussions; conversely, customers who can’t find a willing baker are shit out of luck. **Stanislaus** , you’re completely missing the point of what **LHoD** ’s asking. He’s not asking what the alternative might be if the decision is wrong. He’s asking (I think): if you agree with the decision in this case, it appears to protect a generalized political message because it’s directed toward a protected class. So, if you agree with the decision, precisely what set messages is protected? What range of messages can a business owner be forced to placed on a customized product, and what messages is he free to reject (if any), and under what circumstances? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/108 "2016-10-31T14:18:37Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Normal warning IANAL but as I understood the judgement whether the actual customer was gay was irrelevant so your premise 8 is incorrect. The message on the cake was of benefit to gay community and the reason they refused to do it was because it benefited that community. As the summary put it When I read the opinion, I’m left confused. On the one hand: > [@](#): > > Counsel for the appellants in this case submitted that in order to establish direct discrimination it was necessary to establish some protected personal characteristic and that such a characteristic could not be established by a difference in treatment in respect of a message on a cake. > > We do not accept this. The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people. The appellants would not have objected to a cake carrying the message “Support Heterosexual Marriage” or indeed “Support Marriage”. We accept that it was the use of the word “Gay” in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled. The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community. Accordingly this was direct discrimination. That seems pretty clear: The baker does not need to discriminate against the customer on the basis of a protected characteristic. It is simply prohibited to resist political speech that benefits a protected community (assuming you are willing to engage in political speech otherwise). But, then they ask: > [@](#): > > The preferable approach to an examination of the issue is to ask the question: did the claimant, on the prescribed ground, receive less favourable treatment than others? . . . The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. Now it sounds like we’re back to discrimination against a customer on the basis of his protected characteristic. Which suggests that they refused service because the customer was homosexual (or, at least, known to associate with homosexuals). But then, two sentences later: “What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.” So I can’t tell if the law bans refusing service to homosexuals (which is defensible) or bans refusing to participate in political messages that they disagree with (which I find crazy). (And, from the logic of the decision, with its focus on messages benefiting the gay community, I assume that a baker _could_ refuse to bake a “God hates gays” cake). ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/109 "2016-10-31T15:08:44Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > **Stanislaus** , you’re completely missing the point of what **LHoD** ’s asking. He’s not asking what the alternative might be if the decision is wrong. He’s asking (I think): if you agree with the decision in this case, it appears to protect a generalized political message because it’s directed toward a protected class. So, if you agree with the decision, precisely what set messages is protected? What range of messages can a business owner be forced to placed on a customized product, and what messages is he free to reject (if any), and under what circumstances? Yeah, I had a nagging sense I was missing something, thanks. I don’t see that there are other options, following the ruling. Of the two, I would narrowly prefer a blanket enforcement rather than have the state get involved in deciding which particular positions are too offensive to allow and which are not. But neither are very palatable. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/110 "2016-10-31T16:02:06Z")
A lot of the posts here seem to make the mistaken assumption that discrimination against gays is illegal in the US - it’s not, except in a few localities. The wedding cake case cited earlier happened in Colorado, which is one of those places where civil rights laws have been extended to make sexual orientation a protected class. IN THOSE PLACES, discriminating against gays is comparable to discriminating on the basis of race. A bakery couldn’t refuse to make a cake for a black couple because they’re black. But they could refuse to make a cake that had a message against interracial marriage. But in most of the country, for example here in Texas, gays are not a class protected by civil rights laws, so a baker can legally tell a same-sex couple that they won’t be served due to their homosexuality. The question is whether sexual orientation _should_ be added to civil rights laws. For the most part, businesses are allowed to choose whom to do business with and restricting their rights is a pretty drastic step. Race, national origin, and religion are protected because there were places in the country where people couldn’t get needed services because all the businesses were discriminating, so the Civil Rights Act pretty much fixed that. Are gays facing the same kind of widespread discrimination? It seems to me that the places that protect sexual orientation are the places where homosexuality is discriminated against the least, and in places where a same-sex couple wouldn’t be able to find _any_ bakery to make them a cake, those are the places where sexual orientation would never be protected by local governments. That I think is why civil rights laws need to be nationwide, and I would support adding sexual orientation as a protected class to the Civil Rights Act. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/111 "2016-10-31T16:42:49Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > A lot of the posts here seem to make the mistaken assumption that discrimination against gays is illegal in the US - it’s not, except in a few localities… > > Are gays facing the same kind of widespread discrimination? It seems to me that the places that protect sexual orientation are the places where homosexuality is discriminated against the least, and in places where a same-sex couple wouldn’t be able to find _any_ bakery to make them a cake, those are the places where sexual orientation would never be protected by local governments. That I think is why civil rights laws need to be nationwide, and I would support adding sexual orientation as a protected class to the Civil Rights Act. I completely agree with your last paragraph. I realize that that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class - and in any case this is not a US court judgment. But I was more interested in the general principles at stake here: assume that X is a protected class in a jurisdiction, what is the correct balance between a business owner’s right to free speech, and the right of a protected class to be treated equally and protected from bigotry? Clearly, there are circumstances when these rights are in direct conflict. I think my view is that protected classes should be protected from bigotry that prevents them from doing the same things as everyone else - which would include staying in hotels, having wedding cakes personalized to you with (say) your names in order to have the same kind of wedding as any other couple. But I don’t think there should be some right to force a business owner to print all generalized political slogans on custom products, even if that business owner chooses to print some such slogans. If I can’t find a hotel to stay in because of bigotry, or I can’t have a normal wedding because of bigotry, that’s a serious problem and it overrides the right of any business-running bigot to free speech. But if I can’t find a local business willing to print a cake or a tee-shirt with generalized political statements, whether that’s “gay marriage is awesome” (or for that matter “white people are awesome”), then I don’t think that’s significant enough to warrant government intervention and to override business owners’ rights to free speech. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/112 "2016-10-31T16:43:09Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Go to a Christian church and compel them to say some Buddhists prayers for you. Let us know how it works out. Start classifying churches as businesses. Let us know how it works out. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/113 "2016-10-31T17:18:18Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Start classifying churches as businesses. Let us know how it works out. Agreed, but there are more apt analogies that need to be addressed under this judgment. This judgment seems to imply that at least (a) and possibly both (a) and (b) are illegal: (a) A business that sells customized tee-shirts printed with any verse you choose from the bible, but nothing else. (b) A bookstore that sells only conservative Christian books. If you don’t think the judgment implies this, can you explain the distinction? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/114 "2016-10-31T17:43:38Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > And US Courts have pretty much a settled outlook on this: if you are operating a public business, you have to serve all members of the public. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t open a business. > So if only those lunch counters in 1960 North Carolinas had thought to say _“Unlike the generic hamburgers sold by McDonalds, every hamburger here is customized to the order of the customer”_, then they could have got away with refusing to serve those black customers? > > 55 years later, it’s still astonishing to what nitpicking extents people will go to just to defend their bigotry. It’s more like if I have a stand serving only Pork BBQ, then I must also offer alternative food or else I can be accused of attempting to keep Jews and Muslims away from my business. I’m not really understanding your analogy. The black customer can order the same hamburgers the white customers order. The _exact_ same ones. If the restaurant offers jalapeno peppers as a hamburger topping, if must offer them to blacks and whites alike. I think you would extend this analogy to say that if the shop offers “wedding cakes” or prints “political slogans” then it must do so for any and all messages. I think that is the difference of opinion we have: do we serve the customer or the product/message? As I mentioned above, if a shop refuses to bake a same sex wedding cake for a heterosexual customer buying a cake for her gay friends’ wedding, where is the discrimination? It cannot be against the heterosexual customer on the basis of her sexual orientation, nor does the shop owner owe any non-discrimination duty to his non-customers. And the gay customer can buy coffee, donuts, cupcakes, or opposite sex marriage cakes just like any other customer. What we are doing here is forcing a business to make a particular product, not to serve customers on an equal basis. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/115 "2016-10-31T17:45:30Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Start classifying churches as businesses. Let us know how it works out. Epic dodge! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/116 "2016-10-31T18:39:08Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > As I mentioned above, if a shop refuses to bake a same sex wedding cake for a heterosexual customer buying a cake for her gay friends’ wedding, where is the discrimination? It cannot be against the heterosexual customer on the basis of her sexual orientation, nor does the shop owner owe any non-discrimination duty to his non-customers. Whether antidiscrimination law is a good thing is a separate issue (and I have trouble believing the extent to which some libertarians want to die on that hill, but whatever). Stipulate for this discussion that anti-discrimination law is the law of the land. If we accept your dodge, then it becomes meaningless. I want to not serve Jews. So I make a rule that anyone who steps in my business, regardless of religion, but bare their head and eat a piece of bacon before approaching the counter. I want to not serve black people. So I rule that anyone who comes in my store, white or black, must not have kinky hair, and also must not have natural or made-up skin that’s darker than a specific paint sample I hang by the door. Saying that you deny specific services to everyone, when the denial serves to target a protected group, is unconvincing and unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/117 "2016-10-31T19:05:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Whether antidiscrimination law is a good thing is a separate issue (and I have trouble believing the extent to which some libertarians want to die on that hill, but whatever). Stipulate for this discussion that anti-discrimination law is the law of the land. > > If we accept your dodge, then it becomes meaningless. > > I want to not serve Jews. So I make a rule that anyone who steps in my business, regardless of religion, but bare their head and eat a piece of bacon before approaching the counter. > > I want to not serve black people. So I rule that anyone who comes in my store, white or black, must not have kinky hair, and also must not have natural or made-up skin that’s darker than a specific paint sample I hang by the door. > > Saying that you deny specific services to everyone, when the denial serves to target a protected group, is unconvincing and unworkable. I think you’re eliding a distinction in what was said (which is part of what makes the line drawing difficult). The baker must serve Jews. And he can’t come up with clever rules to avoid it. But let’s say he objects to making a bris cake, because he opposes ritual genital mutilation. So he won’t sell a cake that it going to be used to celebrate such a barbaric and offensive practice. Is he refusing service to the customer because the customer is Jewish? If the gentile neighbor comes to get the cake, can he refuse service? Isn’t this about the event, rather than the protected status of the customer? I think that’s his point. Refusing an _event_ isn’t necessarily refusing a customer. (The logic of the decision under discussion is that the baker must not only sell the cake, he must also make a custom cake that says “You will die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers as the Lord commands.”). ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/118 "2016-10-31T19:21:16Z")
If this case were in the US as posited by the OP, then I think [Wooley vs. Maynard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard) would be relevant. From [the opinion](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/case.html): > [@](#): > > We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 319 U. S. 633-634 (1943); id. at 319 U. S. 645 (Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of “individual freedom of mind.” Id. at 319 U. S. 637. Now whether putting a message on a cake is considered speech I’m not sure. I’m leaning toward yes and therefore the person should be able to refuse, just as a writer or another artist should be able to refuse to perform commissioned work that they do not agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/119 "2016-10-31T19:42:47Z")
I don’t have a clear answer, but I wonder about two other cases: 1. Imagine a similar bakery that offered an automatic cake decorating service: a computer would “print” your message onto the cake. The process was self-service through a kiosk. Could the business owner, looking over a customer’s shoulder, cancel an order with obscene language? What about canceling an order with a political message the owner disagreed with? What about canceling an order that decorated a cake with the message “Congratulations Josh and Kevin on your adoption”? 2. A translation service for the deaf allows deaf customers to dial on a special line, where they type their words to be read aloud by the human translator. The human translator in turn turns the hearing speaker’s words into text. Can this human translator refuse to convey obscenities? Refuse to convey a message like, “I’m so happy that you and Kevin got married, Josh”? In other words, at some point a business owner who produces language according to customer demand is no longer speaking for herself, and it may be in those cases free speech rights don’t apply. I’m not sure, though, so I’m raising these analogies to see if folks think they’re relevant and how they might apply. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/120 "2016-10-31T20:14:43Z")
If you are receiving money from someone to put their words on a sign, or cake, or whatever, it is obviously not _your_ political free speech that is under question. You have accepted money for the service of putting the words into whatever media you work with. It’s the customer who is making the statement. It becomes tricky, because we permit actors, for example, to refuse to take an acting job where they’d have to say something contrary to their beliefs. But one actor refusing a job does not risk the customer having _no_ actors available for the job, so that customer can still get his desired political speech out. If you’re the only cake decorator available to a customer, though, when you refuse the customer then you’re limiting _his_ free speech. _Then_ it seems like it is time to determine if your refusal to serve that customer is discriminatory, or not. But at no point should we get confused that somehow the _cake decorator_ is the making the political speech; it’s the _customer_ who is doing that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860.md?page=7)