Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple.
Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic, if back in high school when I went up to the counter for food, the chef could have denied me. It just opens up a can of worms.
On the other hand, if I'm just wrong and baking a cake does actually qualify as free speech, then one way you could argue for Mr. Phillips is by bringing up a rule established in Miami Herald v. Tornillo: telling someone what to "publish" is the same as telling someone what NOT to publish (therefore is a violation of free expression), and I'd say that rational applies to this wedding cake case too; telling Mr. Phillips what he needs to bake is a violation to his rights, because you're telling him what not to bake.
Question: I thought we had an equal protection/anti-discrimination law that prevents business owners from denying service based on the individual's beliefs, religion, sex, etc.?
Source:
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo. 418 U.S. 241. 1974. Web. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/241/case.html
Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic, if back in high school when I went up to the counter for food, the chef could have denied me. It just opens up a can of worms.
On the other hand, if I'm just wrong and baking a cake does actually qualify as free speech, then one way you could argue for Mr. Phillips is by bringing up a rule established in Miami Herald v. Tornillo: telling someone what to "publish" is the same as telling someone what NOT to publish (therefore is a violation of free expression), and I'd say that rational applies to this wedding cake case too; telling Mr. Phillips what he needs to bake is a violation to his rights, because you're telling him what not to bake.
Question: I thought we had an equal protection/anti-discrimination law that prevents business owners from denying service based on the individual's beliefs, religion, sex, etc.?
Source:
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo. 418 U.S. 241. 1974. Web. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/241/case.html
Comments
Post a Comment