T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued

[california boy]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

There is a difference! A guy comes in and either buys or rents a tux for a multitude of reasons. A wedding cake is delivered and is usually specific to the event. Very often there are specific decorative requests with regard to a cake. With a tux, the guy picks one off the rack. I do like a tux in midnight blue with shawl lapels with a pleated shirt, cumberbun and hand tied bowtie ... 

You really think a store owner has a right to make sure their customers that buy their merchandise have a right to decide how that product is used after it leaves the store?  And if they don't like the way it is being used they can scream their religious beliefs are under attack?

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So called Liberals make up tripe like voter surpression of minorities by Conservatives. Does...Not...Happen. You may not like voter ID laws but your accusation is extremely without merit. 

 

 

 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/26/wisconsin-voter-id-law-deterred-nearly-17-000-voting-uw-study-says/702026001/

Quote

MADISON – A study released Monday estimates 16,800 or more people in Dane and Milwaukee counties were deterred from casting ballots in November because of Wisconsin's voter ID law.

The study by University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist Ken Mayer concluded 16,800 to 23,250 voters in the two counties — the Democratic strongholds of Wisconsin — did not vote because of the voter ID law. The $55,000 survey was paid for with property tax money by Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democratic opponent of the law.

Key portions of those surveyed said they did not vote because they did not have ID that would allow them to or did not believe the IDs they had could be used under the voting law. The study found the ID law disproportionately affected African-Americans and low-income people.

"As the clerk who serves the largest population of African-Americans in the state, I was shocked by the numbers and am furious to see that Jim Crow laws are alive and well," Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said in a news release.

 

Republicans love this kind of stuff. They know they'll lose in a fair election, so they try to tip the scales with voter ID laws designed to keep black people from voting and gerrymandering. Without this kind of stuff they wouldn't have their majorities in congress.

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

If they make the same thing for their straight customers, they'll just have to stop being such snowflakes and provide it to their gay ones as well.

If what you make is considered speech, then no you don't. The government can't compel you to speak because your right to speak is protected by the first amendment. And creative works are considered speech. 

For example, the government can't compel a gay songwriter to compose hymns for the Westboro Baptist Church, even if he happily takes commissions to write songs for the Unitarian Universalist Church. 

Just like the government can't compel a filmmaker to hire a racially diverse cast of actors. Because your right to speak is protected by the Constitution, and that trumps anti-discrimination laws.

 

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Getting out of the wedding business completely was their only option left without being forced to shut down the company. 

Not true (and they were never in "the wedding business", they are a bakery).  They had the option to stop discriminating against a portion of their customers and bake cakes for all weddings.

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/26/wisconsin-voter-id-law-deterred-nearly-17-000-voting-uw-study-says/702026001/

 

Republicans love this kind of stuff. They know they'll lose in a fair election, so they try to tip the scales with voter ID laws designed to keep black people from voting and gerrymandering. Without this kind of stuff they wouldn't have their majorities in congress.

Is there a huge gap between black and white people having IDs? Why would that be?

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If what you make is considered speech, then no you don't. The government can't compel you to speak because your right to speak is protected by the first amendment. And creative works are considered speech. 

For example, the government can't compel a gay songwriter to compose hymns for the Westboro Baptist Church, even if he happily takes commissions to write songs for the Unitarian Universalist Church. 

Just like the government can't compel a filmmaker to hire a racially diverse cast of actors. Because your right to speak is protected by the Constitution, and that trumps anti-discrimination laws.

 

We're not talking about speech though. We're talking about cakes.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Is there a huge gap between black and white people having IDs? Why would that be?

Money. If you don't own a car you're not likely to have a current driver's license.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Money. If you don't own a car you're not likely to have a current driver's license.

State-issued ID (non-driver's license). I know lots of minorities who have one. They are cheap and easy to obtain --- and accepted at the polls. 

Why don't the liberal action groups push to help people get IDs so that this isn't an issue? It's because the voter ID laws are intended to prevent fraud, and the liberal action groups engage in fraud. That's why these groups scream to high heaven that voter ID laws are intended to depress minority turnout. If I were these groups, I would flood the polls with *legitimate*, properly ID'd, voters and kick the voter ID law proponents in the teeth. But, all they do is complain that they are trying to keep minorities from voting. 

I think the real problem is that many minority voters won't vote, even if they have valid ID. The liberal action groups do big get-out-the-vote actions in neighborhoods and bus people to the polls. When you have groups busing people in, I think it's more important then that they can prove that they live in the precinct and haven't already voted.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

If what you make is considered speech, then no you don't. The government can't compel you to speak because your right to speak is protected by the first amendment. And creative works are considered speech. 

It is rather nonsensical to broadly claim that what we make is speech. Even the cake shop owner admits this - when he suggests that he is perfectly willing to sell a pre-made wedding cake to the gay couple (and this isn't a forced expression of speech) - although should the court side with him, he could refuse to even sell those, I would expect. So it isn't that there is this broad naturally occurring phenomenon here, it is clearly a more narrow sort of thing that is the basis for the argument.

Songs and films are inherently speech to begin with, aren't they. And those who make them engage in an act of communication with their audiences - and just as importantly, those audiences understand these things as an act of communication. On the other hand, this isn't obvious at all with a wedding cake. The people who purchase them do not actually purchase the wedding cake as a speech from the baker to them (as the celebrants of their wedding). The cake becomes a prop for the couple in their own expression, but isn't used as some independent expression of its own. And as evidence of this, couldn't we order a wedding cake (special order it even), and use it in some other context than a real wedding? And if we did this, then the speech that the baker is claiming exists becomes completely incoherent (assuming that it exists at all). There are real problems with asserting this idea that a product of any sort that could be construed as giving approval to something is speech (let alone some kind of protected speech).

On top of this, what do we do about all of the actual requirements that we recognize that the government can place on manufacturing things. Does the idea that the cake is now speech suddenly mean that the FDC no longer can regulate the process? That it can no longer impose rules on what sorts of ingredients can and cannot be used? Could government no longer enforce sanitation regulations on the setting in which the cake is made? All of these things could be argued to be a part of making the speech, couldn't they? And couldn't we apply the same sort of thinking to much more complex building projects? What about a home. Should we allow builders to justify discrimination in home sales over the view that the home itself is a speech, and that the sale of that home then should be understood in the context of making that speech and so protected from discrimination claims when that discrimination claim could be viewed through the lens of religious belief?

The problem that we face is that this opens a great big can of worms. Any product or service that could be viewed as being able to carry a message of approval or endorsement would suddenly be given an exemption from any sort of discrimination protection. And we certainly shouldn't want this (although I suppose there are people who do).

And finally, to get back to the communication issue - if the cake baker has to meet the couple to make sure that what the couple wants is represented in the cake, then can the cake maker really claim that the cake's message is his own?

I think that generally speaking, we do not consider baking a cake to be speech (although what the cake is used for might be).

Personally, I also think the title of the thread is regrettable. It's a lot like saying, "I can't be a racist, see, I have a black friend ...."

Edited September 27, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

State-issued ID (non-driver's license). I know lots of minorities who have one. They are cheap and easy to obtain --- and accepted at the polls. 

Maybe not so easy when you're working many minimum wage jobs at odd hours

 

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why don't the liberal action groups push to help people get IDs so that this isn't an issue? It's because the voter ID laws are intended to prevent fraud, and the liberal action groups engage in fraud.

There is no evidence to support that.

In Illinois they automatically register all eligible people to vote now. Why don't conservative states do the same? What are they afraid of?

 

 

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

That's why these groups scream to high heaven that voter ID laws are intended to depress minority turnout. If I were these groups, I would flood the polls with *legitimate*, properly ID'd, voters and kick the voter ID law proponents in the teeth. But, all they do is complain that they are trying to keep minorities from voting. 

As easy as that, huh?

 

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the real problem is that many minority voters won't vote, even if they have valid ID. The liberal action groups do big get-out-the-vote actions in neighborhoods and bus people to the polls. When you have groups busing people in, I think it's more important then that they can prove that they live in the precinct and haven't already voted.

Imagine that, voter suppression works!

[Calm]

Slavery is the dark side of a false freedom of the those who have Power to impose their will on the unfree.

The USSR had that type of 'freedom'.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

In Illinois they automatically register all eligible people to vote now. Why don't conservative states do the same? What are they afraid of?

When I was doing post-baccalaureate work at ASU, I had a seminar class and the topic ended up being women's suffrage for a semester. The teacher was liberal, of course. Late in the semester, she had asked me something (I forget what, but we were talking about low voter turnout), and I responded that it would be an interesting study to compare voter participation with eligible voters, because I would bet that the more people allowed to vote in the U.S., the less who actually do. She said that those studies had been thoroughly done, and that I was correct. Voter participation was at its high water mark when only white landed males could vote, and with each successive opening of eligibility, turnout as a percentage of eligible voters has declined (black males, women, 18 year-olds, etc.). 

It's a seeming paradox, because you would think that when it is opened up to new groups, they would gladly vote. The opposite appears to be true.

This is also the case with efforts to make it easier to vote (i.e., eliminate the need to go to a poll and cast a vote; vote-by-mail, etc.). 

I think it's kind of like when you give things to people instead of having them pay for it, they don't value it. Voting has never been easier, and enthusiasm for it has never been lower (of course, the product also factors into enthusiasm). I think voting is valued more when it requires some effort. I consider it to be somewhat like an ordinance ---- the ritual of going to the polling place, proving my identity, casting my vote. I would never consider voting by mail/early ballot.

While automatically registering people might sound like a great idea, from what I have learned and my own experience, I think it is guaranteed to lead to low turnout and low valuing of voting. I think people should have to make some effort to register themselves.

[Calm]

Part of the issue is believing your vote matters. If you come from a low power group, more likely to believe your vote is meaningless, so why bother. 

 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

When I was doing post-baccalaureate work at ASU, I had a seminar class and the topic ended up being women's suffrage for a semester. The teacher was liberal, of course. Late in the semester, she had asked me something (I forget what, but we were talking about low voter turnout), and I responded that it would be an interesting study to compare voter participation with eligible voters, because I would bet that the more people allowed to vote in the U.S., the less who actually do. She said that those studies had been thoroughly done, and that I was correct. Voter participation was at its high water mark when only white landed males could vote, and with each successive opening of eligibility, turnout as a percentage of eligible voters has declined (black males, women, 18 year-olds, etc.). 

It's a seeming paradox, because you would think that when it is opened up to new groups, they would gladly vote. The opposite appears to be true.

This is also the case with efforts to make it easier to vote (i.e., eliminate the need to go to a poll and cast a vote; vote-by-mail, etc.). 

I think it's kind of like when you give things to people instead of having them pay for it, they don't value it. Voting has never been easier, and enthusiasm for it has never been lower (of course, the product also factors into enthusiasm). I think voting is valued more when it requires some effort. I consider it to be somewhat like an ordinance ---- the ritual of going to the polling place, proving my identity, casting my vote. I would never consider voting by mail/early ballot.

While automatically registering people might sound like a great idea, from what I have learned and my own experience, I think it is guaranteed to lead to low turnout and low valuing of voting. I think people should have to make some effort to register themselves.

I'm not sure we can assume causation with that, especially with voter suppression efforts. Not just voter ID laws, but last minute monkeying around with polling dates, giving people false information on where to go, closing polls early in blue districts, etc.

But, in some countries (like Brazil) voting is mandatory. That would certainly solve the problem, although I doubt there is the appetite for it here.

[Amulek]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

We're not talking about speech though. We're talking about cakes.

But we are talking about speech. Cakes just happen to be the medium.

The cake artist argues that he composes works of art on cakes just like an oil painter composes works of art on canvas or a tattoo artist composes works of art on human skin. 

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

When I was doing post-baccalaureate work at ASU, I had a seminar class and the topic ended up being women's suffrage for a semester. The teacher was liberal, of course. Late in the semester, she had asked me something (I forget what, but we were talking about low voter turnout), and I responded that it would be an interesting study to compare voter participation with eligible voters, because I would bet that the more people allowed to vote in the U.S., the less who actually do. She said that those studies had been thoroughly done, and that I was correct. Voter participation was at its high water mark when only white landed males could vote, and with each successive opening of eligibility, turnout as a percentage of eligible voters has declined (black males, women, 18 year-olds, etc.). 

It's a seeming paradox, because you would think that when it is opened up to new groups, they would gladly vote. The opposite appears to be true.

This is also the case with efforts to make it easier to vote (i.e., eliminate the need to go to a poll and cast a vote; vote-by-mail, etc.). 

I think it's kind of like when you give things to people instead of having them pay for it, they don't value it. Voting has never been easier, and enthusiasm for it has never been lower (of course, the product also factors into enthusiasm). I think voting is valued more when it requires some effort. I consider it to be somewhat like an ordinance ---- the ritual of going to the polling place, proving my identity, casting my vote. I would never consider voting by mail/early ballot.

While automatically registering people might sound like a great idea, from what I have learned and my own experience, I think it is guaranteed to lead to low turnout and low valuing of voting. I think people should have to make some effort to register themselves.

 

Some more information:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-voter-id-law-registered-voters-2016-polls-presidential-trump-clinton-democratic-a7969526.html

Quote

Wisconsin’s voter ID law, enacted in 2011 after Republicans took control of the Legislature and the Statehouse, requires citizens to show a driver’s license, a passport, a naturalization certificate or one of several other fairly uncommon documents before casting a ballot.

A federal court blunted the impact of the law in 2016, ordering the state to give a free ID to any voter who asked for one, but the state’s implementation of that order was criticized as ineffective.

In Wisconsin and elsewhere, Republicans have argued that an ID requirement is necessary to combat an epidemic of fraudulent voting, although studies have repeatedly shown that illegal voting is exceedingly rare. Privately, some Republicans have allowed that the laws’ main intent is to keep people who often vote Democratic — the poor, the young and minorities — from going to the polls.

 

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But we are talking about speech. Cakes just happen to be the medium.

The cake artist argues that he composes works of art on cakes just like an oil painter composes works of art on canvas or a tattoo artist composes works of art on human skin. 

It's a cake. It's not artwork. It's a product. All products have unique "expression" by that standard, from cars to furniture to computer to houses.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/26/wisconsin-voter-id-law-deterred-nearly-17-000-voting-uw-study-says/702026001/

 

Republicans love this kind of stuff. They know they'll lose in a fair election, so they try to tip the scales with voter ID laws designed to keep black people from voting and gerrymandering. Without this kind of stuff they wouldn't have their majorities in congress.

Does "deterred" mean did not bother getting an ID? 

Careful of these kinds of claims. Tis why I originally asked fir a *court case*, not a survey. 

http://www.snopes.com/300000-wisconsin-voters-turned-away-due-to-voter-id-laws/

And here's an aweful lot of Him Crowing here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/us/elections/state-legislature-change-in-control.html

Quote

...They will control the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature, a governing trifecta, in four more states — Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri and New Hampshire.

The net effect of the elections Tuesday will be that Republicans will have a trifecta in 24 states, while Democrats will have just six, as of Friday.

While Democrats picked up a trifecta in one state, they lost trifectas in two others.

Democrats are sure lucky that at a national level Republicans govern so incompetently. 

"The $55,000 survey was paid for with property tax money by Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democratic opponent of the law." 

Yeah, that's unbiased. About as unbiased as the dellusional realities people have about Republicans cannot win in a fair election, and they are sexist, racist, and homophobic. 

 

"I was shocked by the numbers and am furious to see that Jim Crow laws are alive and well," Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said in a news release." 

Yeah, totally objectionable language there. 

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure we can assume causation with that, especially with voter suppression efforts. Not just voter ID laws, but last minute monkeying around with polling dates, giving people false information on where to go, closing polls early in blue districts, etc.

But, in some countries (like Brazil) voting is mandatory. That would certainly solve the problem, although I doubt there is the appetite for it here.

Um, sure you want to use Brazil as an example of a political beacon? Good grief.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Slavery is the dark side of a false freedom of the those who have Power to impose their will on the unfree.

The USSR had that type of 'freedom'.

The USSR has *never* had freedom. Nothing like you or I would recognize. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So called Liberals make up tripe like voter surpression of minorities by Conservatives. Does...Not...Happen. You may not like voter ID laws but your accusation is extremely without merit. 

There are no "liberals" or "conservatives," although those are emotional states or moods which some poorly educated people use to define themselves.  They are designations without actual content.

You can stick your head in the sand, if you wish, as do many Americans who just don't want to know the facts, and who live in fantasyland, but voter suppression is specific policy in the Republican administration of most states.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/supreme-court-and-voter-suppression .

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/magazine/the-supreme-court-ruled-that-voting-restrictions-were-a-bygone-problem-early-voting-results-suggest-otherwise.html?mcubz=1 .

https://www.thenation.com/article/there-are-868-fewer-places-to-vote-in-2016-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/ .

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Question: I cited the 10th Amendment above. If the US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" as you say, how do you say, "as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court".

To wit:

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

That's "state's rights". This is the "supreme law of the land", correct? Where else within does the "supreme law of the land" say that the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution as per Judicial Review? 

I agree it is the supreme law of the land, just not how you are defining it. Judicial Review is indeed real but the manner which you are outlining constitutional powers does not make sense. It does not follow logic. Your rights are not given you because a court says so. Your rights are given you because you are a child of God. And, check this out, minorities are children of God too. That's why they have rights and it is up to *you* / *us*,  freeman, the voter and active citizen to keep your / our rights respected; not the Judiciary. So, as per the "supreme law of the land", We the People keep our rights respected through our voice, not through lawsuites.

You certainly have opinions, Darren.  The problem is that they are completely non-factual.  You need to take a two semester course in Constitutional Law at your local university.  No lawyer or judge in America believes what I have bolded above from your comments.  You are deeply misinformed.

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.""

Correct. God inspired the 10th Amendment, not Judicial Review. ........................

Can you cite a Supreme Court case where minorities were found oppressed? If so, what was the ultimate outcome of that case? 

Yes, and there are a number of such cases:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html?mcubz=1 .  Politics in America is hardball, and no punches are being pulled.  You apparently believe that states dominated by Republicans (most states now) got that way via regular democracy, but that is not true:  What really happened was an evil and cynical effort to gerrymander state districts so that Republicans are favored.  In this way, one-man-one-vote is prevented, and power goes to the privileged. Much of that was made possible through a Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, by the Roberts Court -- meaning that large donors can make unlimited contributions to special PACs and can remain anonymous.  This has guaranteed that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.  Is that what you want?  Are you even aware of such facts?  Probably not, since you have never studied constitutional law or political science professionally.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not true (and they were never in "the wedding business", they are a bakery).  They had the option to stop discriminating against a portion of their customers and bake cakes for all weddings.

They catered to weddings, sir. Until they were surd for discriminating against a gay couple and since then have pulled out of the wedding buisness. 

And you have the option to stop discriminating against their religious objections. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

They catered to weddings, sir. Until they were surd for discriminating against a gay couple and since then have pulled out of the wedding buisness. 

They were a bakery and still are a bakery.  They did not specialize is catering weddings nor were they in the "wedding business" (they were a part of that industry, of course....but that wasn't what their business was).  They baked wedding cakes as just one of the many baked goods they offered.  The only change is that they have now opted to not bake that one item anymore, but are still open for business.

They also had other options, but chose this one as the best solution for them.  

Edited September 27, 2017 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

State-issued ID (non-driver's license). I know lots of minorities who have one. They are cheap and easy to obtain --- and accepted at the polls. 

Why don't the liberal action groups push to help people get IDs so that this isn't an issue? It's because the voter ID laws are intended to prevent fraud, and the liberal action groups engage in fraud. That's why these groups scream to high heaven that voter ID laws are intended to depress minority turnout. If I were these groups, I would flood the polls with *legitimate*, properly ID'd, voters and kick the voter ID law proponents in the teeth. But, all they do is complain that they are trying to keep minorities from voting. 

I think the real problem is that many minority voters won't vote, even if they have valid ID. The liberal action groups do big get-out-the-vote actions in neighborhoods and bus people to the polls. When you have groups busing people in, I think it's more important then that they can prove that they live in the precinct and haven't already voted.

The idea that people are unable to fork over the money for an ID while on a tight budget seems implausible but you believe it is plausible that these people are engaged in massive fraud risking their future freedom in order to get one extra vote? And they did this (according to our dedicated to the truth President) with millions of people and they covered it up completely and nobody talked. That is insane.

There is no evidence backing voter fraud allegations. Meanwhile we have copies of studies Republicans have done to figure out who will have trouble or expense voting with voter ID laws right before implementing the change to the point the courts shut them down. Same reason they fight to keep voting on a weekday and limit polling locations in some areas. I find myself hoping there is a special place in hell reserved for those trying to deny the ballot to the disadvantaged and suppress votes while claiming they are protecting democracy from fraud.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The USSR has *never* had freedom. Nothing like you or I would recognize. 

Some did. The "haves". The "have nots" not so much. Much like the pre Civil War south were the separation was set by law.

[Amulek]

58 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is rather nonsensical to broadly claim that what we make is speech.

Who has made such a claim?

I said that if what you produce is considered speech, then you don't have to provide that good/service to everyone; which is manifestly true (see, e.g., the link to the T-Shirt maker in the OP).

 

Quote

Even the cake shop owner admits this - when he suggests that he is perfectly willing to sell a pre-made wedding cake to the gay couple (and this isn't a forced expression of speech) - although should the court side with him, he could refuse to even sell those, I would expect.

First, I don't ever remember seeing anything about the baker being willing to sell pre-made wedding cakes. CFR on that. I know that the baker was willing to sell any non-custom baked good that they offer to anyone though, so maybe that's where you are confused?

Second, even if the court rules in his favor, he won't be able to discriminate when selling his non-custom baked goods - just like he isn't able to discriminate in the sale of them now. 

 

Quote

So it isn't that there is this broad naturally occurring phenomenon here, it is clearly a more narrow sort of thing that is the basis for the argument.

Yeah. Commissioned pieces of art are different than mass-produced goods.

 

Quote

Songs and films are inherently speech to begin with, aren't they. And those who make them engage in an act of communication with their audiences - and just as importantly, those audiences understand these things as an act of communication. On the other hand, this isn't obvious at all with a wedding cake.

I was merely using the songwriter and filmmaker examples to show that there are clearly situations where discrimination is allowed. Whether or not creating a wedding cake is like creating an oil painting and should be similarly treated a protected form of expression is subject to debate.

 

Quote

The cake becomes a prop for the couple in their own expression, but isn't used as some independent expression of its own.

The expression at issue is the expression that goes into the creation of it. When somebody goes to a tattoo artist they no doubt want to get a tattoo that will server as a prop for their own personal expression, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an expression on the artists part as well. 

 

 

Quote

On top of this, what do we do about all of the actual requirements that we recognize that the government can place on manufacturing things. Does the idea that the cake is now speech suddenly mean that the FDC no longer can regulate the process? That it can no longer impose rules on what sorts of ingredients can and cannot be used? Could government no longer enforce sanitation regulations on the setting in which the cake is made? All of these things could be argued to be a part of making the speech, couldn't they?

Um, no.

As an obvious counterpoint, remember that television and radio have been considered speech for quite some time now, and the FCC still manages to regulate those industries. Do you seriously think the specialty food industry would be any different?

 

Quote

And couldn't we apply the same sort of thinking to much more complex building projects? What about a home. Should we allow builders to justify discrimination in home sales over the view that the home itself is a speech, and that the sale of that home then should be understood in the context of making that speech and so protected from discrimination claims when that discrimination claim could be viewed through the lens of religious belief?

Again, no. And nobody has suggested otherwise. 

 

Quote

The problem that we face is that this opens a great big can of worms. Any product or service that could be viewed as being able to carry a message of approval or endorsement would suddenly be given an exemption from any sort of discrimination protection. And we certainly shouldn't want this (although I suppose there are people who do).

It doesn't open a great big can of worms. It will open up a brief period of litigation where floral designers, calligraphers, and a handful of other wedding related industries will all get their day in court and try to argue that their work product ought to be considered protected expression as well. Trust me, the sky won't be falling even if the baker wins.

 

Quote

And finally, to get back to the communication issue - if the cake baker has to meet the couple to make sure that what the couple wants is represented in the cake, then can the cake maker really claim that the cake's message is his own?

Artists meet with the people who commission their works all the time to get feedback and make the work more to their patron's liking. That doesn't mean that they aren't still expressing themselves though.