Fyi, CJ Roberts brought that up, discussing beginning on page 64 of the transcript.

But if I was placing the order, I am a protected class. Maybe I want him on the cake so that I can “feel” what he is supposed to have looked like… Devil’s advocate, don’t yell at me. What I am pointing out is that we all have ox’s that can be gored by some protected class out there if they just work at it a bit…

He didn’t sue anybody, because he supports the idea that a merchant can turn down such business.

https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/695/414/2345901/

Chippewa theater in South Bend Indiana. I was a college student then. It was a stretch to call that either art or speech. But interesting enough to college men that they could clean out our wallets in just a few hours.

It’s unclear, because of the nature of wedding cakes,

1. Many wedding cakes have bride(female) and groom(male) figures on the top of the cake. If you want two grooms or two brides, that is NOT the same cake that would be sold no a straight couple.

2 No one mass produces wedding cakes to sell “off the shelf”.
They are either:

2a Made to order from a catalog of standard designs available from that baker.

2b One off custom art pieces.

In my opinion, 2a probably should be subject to public accommodations laws, but 2b definitely should not be.

3. Many wedding cakes are delivered directly to the reception site and setup by the baker. This requires some level of participation in the event by the baker. You say “the baker refused to bake a cake because of the identity” it’s also possible to argue that he refused because of the type of event that the cake was for rather than the identity of the clients.

“because of the identity of the people buying it”

This was very much in controversy at oral argument, the defendants arguing that Phillips had made clear he was happy to serve Craig and Mullins cakes of any other forms and occasions, but not one in celebration of their wedding. The plaintiffs insisted that this amounted in practice to discrimination based on identity while the defense pointed out that Phillips would also have turned down a similar request made by, say, straight customers intent on celebrating a gay wedding (maybe through a surprise cake donation, or one in vicarious celebration of a distant wedding they couldn’t attend in person, etc.)

Well no, they probably wouldn’t, because that analogy is flawed. “People who want Mohammed on a cake” is not a protected class. The issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop is that the baker refused to bake a cake because of the identity of the people buying it, not because they wanted a particular message put on it. The baker sold the same wedding cakes to straight couples, but refused to sell to a gay couple. That’s a very different situation than refusing to put a particular image or message on a cake.

It’s unclear to me why the issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop is any different than a baker who refuses to bake a cake for an interracial wedding. Maybe you think the baker should have the absolute right to choose his customers, or maybe you think that should be tempered by civil rights law, but I don’t see why this is any more complicated.