Where to Draw Line on Free Speech? Wedding Cake Case Vexes Lawyers

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

I think this is a key concept here and a good litmus test for whether someone's rights are being violated.

I believe there are two relevant points which support the idea that the baker is well within his rights. One: The gay couple are not being denied the right to a cake per se, they're just being denied at that particular bakery. No one is suggesting that they can't have a cake at their wedding at all. Two: Even if they were, I know of no law or statute which guarantees the right to having a cake (in any circumstance) in the first place, let alone mandating that someone else bake it for you. However, the rights of freedom of religion and of expression are explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. If the gay couple were to simply choose another bakery, or bake the cake themselves, they could have a wedding cake and the Christian baker would not have to violate his principles/beliefs. Everyone wins.

I believe this applies to other current events, as well. As I stated in the thread about the NFL controversy, no one is suggesting that the players cannot protest per se, some simply believe they shouldn't do it on others' time. Even if they do it on their own time: if their employer feels it is having a negative impact on their business by association, or if they simply disagree with it, firing the player does not deny their right to continue to protest. It just means they'll have to find another source of income. Again, I know of no law or statute which guarantees a person the right to a particular job regardless of their actions.

In the past, I have also echoed the sentiment that I would not want a cake that someone was forced to bake for me under duress. In a conversation with a friend, I even suggested that the baker go ahead and bake the cake, but just make it really poorly to prove a point. (For instance, decorate it with his eyes closed or add a crap ton of salt to it. Nothing harmful.) My friend countered with the suggestion that sales would drop after a poor review. I replied that might be so ... but personally, if I see ninety-nine great reviews for a company and one bad one, I usually assume that that was a fluke or just one of those people that can't be satisfied.

I also believe it is worth mentioning that the U.S. economy is based mostly on free market capitalism. This means that the person or company which can provide the best service/product at the lowest price will usually come out on top. The consumers themselves can directly vote with their dollars for whomever they want. If a community decides that they do not agree with the practices of a particular business, they can collectively avoid that business. In other words, if we as a society believe a business should behave in a certain way, we can directly influence that. There's no need for the law to get involved at all.

The only time I believe the law should get involved is when it comes to state or federally run/funded services or products/services which are vital for a person's well being. This includes such things as health care and public education.

That's the most well-reasoned view I've read on this subject. This is not discriminating against gay people who want to get "married" and celebrate with a cake but a business owner with a legitimate religious objection to the gay marriage should have the right to decline the business. While the baker was refusing to provide the cake, he wasn't engaging in anti-gay discrimination. He was happy to provide the gay dudes with other baked goods, he just does not believe gay marriage is marriage. I'm sure we would not be having this argument if the baker was Muslim and there was pork in involved.