Baking a cake is a form of protected creative expression

The argument

Both baking a cake and creating flower arrangements is a form of artistic expression - the Colorado baker was adamant about how personal and individual his work is. In his words, every cake that leaves his shop contains a personal piece of himself. What's more however, he argued that by crafting a cake for a same-sex wedding, he would be making a speech act in favour of same-sex unions - something that in actuality he is deeply opposed to. By forcing the baker to create this cake, you would be violating his right to freely speak against same-sex weddings. To understand this argument it helps to imagine a different scenario. For example, we think that it would be understandable for a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake depicting strong anti-gay imagery; or for a black baker to refuse to decorate cupcakes celebrating apartheid. Forcing these alternative bakers into accepting these jobs is a violation of their right to control the ideas they endorse and speak for. This was the pivotal piece of reasoning that swung the supreme court in favour of the baker. Forcing an individual to speak in favour, or against, an institution/idea/principle is violence against that individual and incontrovertibly violates their first amendment. As the first amendment is the source of many other rights, and is the basis for a healthy democracy, it's prioritisation is reasonable and important.

Context

The case that baker Jack Phillips brought before the supreme court was largely one premised on his cakes being forms of expression that were protected by the First Amendment. It wasn't the only reason his case won - the decision in his favour seemed to turn on the fact that the Justices considered the baker's religious sensibilities to have been disrespected in the lower courts. This argument however focusses on reconstructing the case that Jack Phillips' lawyers brought to the Court.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics argue the conclusion vastly overshoots its premises. Even granting that a custom cake can be expressive and that no one should be compelled to create a specific message, that at most supports a narrow right to decline a bespoke expressive commission — it does not license refusing service 'in all cases.' The ruling in the case was itself decided on narrow grounds and did not establish a blanket religious right to turn customers away. They add that anti-discrimination law generally forbids refusing service on the basis of a protected characteristic, and that a blanket 'all cases' licence would permit refusing to sell ready-made goods, or to serve someone at all, because of who they are — the very harm public-accommodation laws exist to prevent. The expression argument, critics contend, might cover a demand to inscribe a particular message, but stretching it into a general right to deny any service on religious grounds ignores the competing right to be free from discrimination and the limits the courts actually drew.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Critics argue the speech-act point, at most, protects declining to create a specific custom message; it does not extend to refusing to sell ready-made goods or ordinary services, so it cannot justify refusal in 'all cases.' [Rejecting C] A blanket right to refuse service on religious grounds collides with anti-discrimination law protecting customers; the actual ruling was narrow, so the premises support at most a limited expressive exemption, not the sweeping conclusion.