The First Amendment, Without Exceptions! (Indonesian Baker Won’t Write “Merry Christmas” on Cake for Religious Reasons)

This is an interesting story, but the comparison with the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is inaccurate. As noted in an amicus curiae brief filed by the First Amendment Lawyers Association (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-tsac-first-amendment-lawyers-association.pdf), "The Colorado Civil Rights Commission held that Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack C. Phillips, violated the Colorado Anti-DiscriminationAct (“CADA”), § 24-34-601(2), C.R.S. 2014, for declining to create a custom-designed wedding cake for the same-sex marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins." (Emphases added.) 

The same kind of misrepresentation appeared in an email I received from the ACLU a couple weeks ago, falsely claiming the plaintiffs in the American case "just wanted to buy a cake."

As an out bisexual, I obviously wouldn't (if I were a baker) decline to make a cake on the grounds that Phillips is stating (opposition to same-sex marriage). On the other hand, were I approached by an adult evangelical Christian who asked me to create a cake for a celebration marking his graduation from an ex-gay "conversion therapy" program, I very likely would refuse rather than participate in celebrating something I consider fraudulent and pernicious. And if, in response, this would-be customer hit me with a discrimination suit claiming I was refusing his business on the basis of his religion, I would vigorously defend myself, explaining that I wasn't discriminating against him -- I'd be perfectly willing to sell him something off the shelf -- but, rather, discriminating against an idea that I don't agree with. Unlike discrimination against people, discrimination against ideas is protected by the First Amendment.

Applying the Golden Rule (which is supported by secular humanists and a variety of religious traditions in one form or another, and not only Christians), clearly I can't deny Jack Phillips a liberty I claim for myself: the liberty to be free from compelled speech, clearly stated in the brief linked above and completely irrespective of whether the beliefs involved have a religious basis (which they wouldn't in the hypothetical case of the last paragraph).

Not only has Phillips stated his willingness to sell the plaintiffs anything they want off the shelf, but I think it perfectly clear that, had they opted for a low-key wedding sans cake, but some straight friend decided to surprise them with a cake ordered without their knowledge -- and tried to commission this cake from Jack Phillips --  the latter would have refused this prospective customer's business notwithstanding his heterosexuality. Because this case is about discriminating against ideas, not people.

In fact , what the plaintiffs are asking for is to have a special exception carved out (no pun intended) from the First Amendment's protections against compelled speech -- an exception based not only on subject matter (same-sex unions) but on one particular opinion about that subject (pro). This is in defiance of a long and very well established principle of First Amendment jurisprudence, namely that viewpoint discrimination by government is impermissible.