Masterpiece cakeshop v. CCRC

Let me bring some background context to make sure the voters understand the case. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States on whether creative businesses can refuse certain services due to their First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion in light of public accommodation laws—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as a custom wedding cake for same-sex marriage ceremonies, on the basis of one's religious beliefs (Wikipedia). There are two forms of speech that the constitution protects: Pure speech in United States law is the communication of ideas through spoken or written words or through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea. It is distinguished from symbolic speech or "speech plus," which involves conveying an idea or message through behavior. Pure speech is accorded the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution while symbolic speech is accorded an intermediate scrutiny (Wikipedia). The simple act of baking a cake even if its done in a highly stylized or creative and elegant manner, which would be a form of symbolic speech, is not the argument that is being put forth in this debate or in court. Instead, its about highly stylizing an idea or theme on a cake that has nothing to do with the person’s identity. There is no dispute that the baker was being required to express an idea of “marriage” on a cake because all of his wedding cakes are customized and whether it was gay or straight is irrelevant. Thus, expressing the idea of marriage on a cake is a form of Pure speech through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea rather than symbolic speech. Furthermore, "Phillips specially designs each of his cakes after consulting with the couple to learn their story and vision for their wedding and future. He incorporates personal themes (e.g., mountain climbing) into his custom wedding cakes. He uses his artistic skills, including sketching, painting, sculpting, baking, and construction to design each unique wedding cake. Writers tell stories on a page, and painters tell stories on a canvas. Jack Phillips and other cake designers tell stories through the medium of cake design. Their art is no less expressive because it can be consumed. Ice sculptures and skywriting are forms of expression that are equally ephemeral. The creativity involved in custom cake design has long been recognized and protected by the federal government as intellectual property and provided with copyright protection. Custom cake designs also have artistic value that cannot be compared to off-the-shelf cakes purchased at a supermarket or even to the other items that Jack Phillips sells at Masterpiece Cakeshop. These custom creations take on special value because of the collaborative process between the couple and the designer and the unique story they agree to tell through the design of the cake. This artistic value is why Jack Phillips can charge customers several hundred dollars for custom wedding cakes that may feed the same number of people as a much less expensive off-the-shelf item. More well-known cake designers charge in the tens of thousands of dollars for their time and artistic input." www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/report/enforcing-tolerance-through-intolerance-masterpiece-cakeshop-free-speech Why is this important? The baker telling the couple that "I am not going to lend my artistic abilities to doing something I don’t believe in" is a whole different constitutional question compared to just serving somebody. For example, if Walmart said “ we are denying service to all black folks" ( Regardless of context), this would be a denial of service because a Walmart is not doing anything artistic by putting stuff on the shelf and people buying and going to the check out counter. But, when someone is doing something artistic, it’s a whole different ball game and the supreme court has affirmed this. the supreme court in the Hurley case said that the state could not force a parade to include a particular speaker and ,vice versa, they would not be able to force a speaker to attend a parade. This is because if you force a speaker to both engage in speech and contribute that speech to a expressive event that they disagreed with, you fundamentally transform the nature of their message from one that they want to say to one that they don’t want to say . Likewise, you cannot force a baker to express a “wedding” cake to a same sex “wedding” event that he disagrees with because it fundamentally transforms the nature of their message from a traditional view of marriage to an unnatural view of marriage.