Actually the uncontested statement of facts says the details of the design were never discussed so it was impossible to know that. We only know what another bakery eventually gave them for free, very standard box shaped cake that very likely was similar to something in Jack’s gallery

In this specific case, the plaintiffs, according to their own complaint were looking for a full custom designed wedding cake, In other words, they wanted a one off custom art piece.

“Cato’s brief emphasizes the expressive significance of custom cake baking, which involves the creation of a unique work of art with symbolic and emotional elements”

Which this cake didn’t necessarily. The business webpage directed the public to a gallery of wedding cake pictures and said:

“Click the cake image and if you see something you like, just tell Jack.”

The cake selection process was as potentially ‘artistic’ as picking out the style, color and accessory package of a new care.

Commercial speech like this isn’t protected if the customer’s want what was offered for sale. If one can find a cake designnto their liking so can the next order the same one without civil rights discrimination.

And other people than Jack decorated cakes, if he didn’t want to do it someone else at Masterpiece Cakeshop could have.

Phillips was listed in the Commission’s ruling as the business owner, not the person who must decorate this cake. He could take the day off – it is the business with the obligation to obey civil rights laws, not any particular baker’s. The question before the court isn’t even the one the commission decided.

Colorado has a compelling interest in punishing wrongthink. Will SCOTUS agree? Stay tuned.