It’s odd that other examples of the same problem are so hard for some people to construct. It has happened more than once just here in the past day or two. Are people simply overcome by rage imagining that faggots might touch a cake?
I’m also reminded of the Skokie affair in which the NSPA planned a march in Nazi uniform through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. Note that the ACLU here defended the Illinois Nazis, not the Holocaust survivors, on the grounds that even highly offensive speech (in this case, displaying swastikas) is protected under the First Amendment.
I can imagine the KKK’s actions being highly limited in future where real harm is demonstrated but their right to hold and express offensive beliefs remains sacrosanct.
Seems to me that the most important takeaway from all this is that I was right about something. 
That’s not a slippery slope. It’s a slippery mountain range.
The Colorado Commission unknowingly established a precedent that businessmen cannot be forced to endorse viewpoints they disagree with. That’s a much broader freedom than mere freedom of religion. That’s freedom of politics too. Thanks, Colorado Civil Rights Commission!
I’ll cop to not really understanding this argument.
I’m a software developer, small business websites isn’t something I do but it’s a market I understand, and I’d consider any website to be a creative work.
If I had a business slapping together cookie cutter websites for local businesses, but I also had an objection to exotic bird sales, I could certainly refuse to make a specific website for, say, a Jewish owned exotic bird store, under the grounds that I would refuse to make that website for everyone.
Are you saying that I could also refuse to make a website for a Jewish shoe salesman, on the grounds that I have a moral objection to Jews owning businesses in my community? Because such a website would be an artistic creation and I can’t be compelled to create art? Even though I would happily make the exact same art for the exact same business if the owner weren’t Jewish?
A “moral” objection?
No.
But if you have a religious objection, then the First Amendment analysis is necessary.
There is not a bright line between a “moral” objection and a “religious” objection. Your “religious” claim does not have to recognized by any major religion. At least, I hope the US is not in the business of defining which “religions” are legitimate and which aren’t, because that’s a really clear first amendment problem. So if I claim I have a religious objection to Jews owning businesses, who are you to say I don’t?
Note that “religious freedom” is already limited. There is clear precedent that you can’t perform human sacrifices as part of your religion in the US, for instance.
That is pretty much my position as well, and I lean left.
The trick is where you draw the line between a custom cake and a non-custom cake.
Apparently, for some, it involves photography,
Was it possible for a cake to be “artistic” before the invention of the camera?
CMC fnord!
I don’t find the artist idea persuasive unless the item is so unique to the situation and customer that you could never offer the same thing to another customer. Furthermore, if you would make the same cake for someone else, then I don’t think you can argue that your freedom of speech was compromised. The message on the item itself is the same both ways. So it becomes clear you were discriminating.
Since these people never even got to the designing stage, I say he should have had to accommodate them. If they asked for any design aspect he wouldn’t make for other people, fine. That’s his freedom as an artist. But if it is something he would make for others, then it is discrimination.
I do see maybe an argument about events changing context. However, a gay wedding is just a wedding with gay people. So the only relevant distinguishing mark is the homosexuality. So that would be discriminating based on sexuality, which is not permitted under Colorado law.
I still think the instructions given would result in the same results. They just have to be careful not to say anything that could even possibly be (mis)interpreted as attacking religion or a religion. I also suspect that the other cases will draw more lines before this whole thing comes around again, possibly making it pointless for this to appear before the Court again.
I’m not following - I understood Bricker to be saying in the case of a cake that was designed, produced and photographed to be included in a catalog , the “creation of an artistic product” occurred when the cake was designed,produced, and photographed for the catalog - not when the baker produces another cake in response to a customer order and that therefore catalog cakes should be treated the same as off-the-shelf cakes, where the “creation of an artistic product” has also occurred before anyone purchases the cake. There’s no reason to think he would have a different opinion if the catalog consisted of sketches rather than photographs.
Upon rereading … neither was I.
However, I wonder, can I as the baker decide that all of my catalog ‘wedding’ cakes are only available with my standard prune and tuna salad filling and all other flavors of filling are only available as custom cakes?
CMC fnord!
The “In-N-Out” of bakers.
I’m curious. Does this apply to you as a lawyer?
Let’s say you have just been appointed by a judge to be the public defender for a defendant accused of buggery (and let’s assume it is still illegal). For the sake of argument let’s say you are religiously opposed to buggery.
If that is the case are your words, used to help acquit the defendant, a form of compelled speech by the government? Can you tell the court you are out of it using the First Amendment as your reason and expect the court to agree with you?
I imagine you could certainly ask the court to find another attorney to represent the defendant and cite religious reasons. I am curious if they have to agree or can make you defend the person despite your objection. If it went to the Supreme Court how would you want them to rule?
(I am really asking…I think it is an interesting twist on this idea with the baker.)
[quote=“Bricker, post:1338, topic:675792”]
TRUE STATEMENT: a business does not have the same Constitutional rights as an individual.
But I would argue that there’s a specific constitutional right here concerning compelled speech, and that the right of a business to be free from compelled speech is grounded in the First Amendment. I’d further argue that the dividing line is the creation of an artistic product: Colorado can compel a business to sell pre-made items to all comers, and that includes “catalog,” type items that have already been planned and created for the purpose of photographing for inclusion in the catalog.
But I contend that Colorado may not, without offending the First Amendment, compel a baker who offers custom designed cakes unique to an individual event to create one if he doesn’t wish to.[/QUOTE]
(Bolding mine)
SCOTUS seems to be leaning that way, too.
““Content-based laws ‘target speech based on its communicative content’ and ‘are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests,’” the opinion explained.”