Gay Wedding Cake Controversy Heads to Supreme Court

[Trumpster]

The court will find against. Phillips went after the wrong right, his baking a cake is not freedom of speech or religion, it is freedom of association. He should be able, for whatever reasons, be able to decide who he does business with.

I agree with Phillips going after his right to "freedom of speech". But first the court would have to recognize "cake designing" as an art and art as speech. Then recognize that freedom of speech also includes the freedom to remain silent (i.e. not baking a cake). The law cannot compel someone to speak through their art or otherwise. You have the right to remain silent!

[Trumpster]

Nicole: The greater good.

Chris: You'd need to make an argument for that.

I believe "the greater good" concept was established many years ago when blacks were denied service at lunch counters etc. And, to back that up, consider the law of "eminent domain" whereby a person may be ordered to vacate their property for the greater good. Eminent domain has been used since the beginning of our Republic.

I guess you could say the right of association was abolished by the Civil Rights movement. So I doubt the Supreme Court would ever want to be seen as reversing it.


That's why I think Phillips has the best chance by claiming his right to "freedom of Speech" as I stated how it would work in my previous post.

[Docthehun]

My business approach would have been a response on the order of; "Yes, I can bake a cake for you and will, but in all honesty, I'd prefer not." and leave it there. I suspect the clients would have taken their business elsewhere and that probably would have been the end of it.

[barb012]

If this cake baker doesn't want to make cakes for gay weddings then that is their choice. I am sure other bakers want the business.

[Chris]

If this cake baker doesn't want to make cakes for gay weddings then that is their choice. I am sure other bakers want the business.

Should be their choice. But the law takes that freedom away.

[Chris]

My business approach would have been a response on the order of; "Yes, I can bake a cake for you and will, but in all honesty, I'd prefer not." and leave it there. I suspect the clients would have taken their business elsewhere and that probably would have been the end of it.

And if they say do it tell them it will cost $1000.

[Chris]

I believe "the greater good" concept was established many years ago when blacks were denied service at lunch counters etc. And, to back that up, consider the law of "eminent domain" whereby a person may be ordered to vacate their property for the greater good. Eminent domain has been used since the beginning of our Republic.

I guess you could say the right of association was abolished by the Civil Rights movement. So I doubt the Supreme Court would ever want to be seen as reversing it.


That's why I think Phillips has the best chance by claiming his right to "freedom of Speech" as I stated how it would work in my previous post.

What you say is all probably true, there's no room any more in the country to argue what right and wrong, only what's law and bow to the state.

[Ann Fann]

I think they will have to rule against the baker. The free speech argument is specious. Had the same-sex couple asked him to create a gay-themed wedding cake, or one with a message supporting same-sex marriage, and he refused, he would have won his case, just as others have (the t-shirt maker asked to print Gay Pride shirts comes to mind.) Here, he is simply being asked to make exactly the same product for one couple that he routinely makes for every other couple, solely because of who the customer is. That isn't free speech - it's discrimination.

Not because of who the client is. If they wanted a birthday cake they would have gotten it. It was because of what the client was doing, which the baker wanted no part of.

[Standing Wolf]

Not because of who the client is. If they wanted a birthday cake they would have gotten it. It was because of what the client was doing, which the baker wanted no part of.

What were the would-be clients doing? Getting married. The baker makes wedding cakes all the time as part of his business. Therefore it clearly was not "what the client was doing" - it (the refusal of service) was the result of who was doing the asking.

[DGUtley]

What were the would-be clients doing? Getting married. The baker makes wedding cakes all the time as part of his business. Therefore it clearly was not "what the client was doing" - it (the refusal of service) was the result of who was doing the asking.

Playing devil's advocate, it's not "clearly" unrelated to what they were doing. They were getting married in a gay wedding, that is a 'what they were doing' thing.