Making a cake does not involve speech, it is the production of a product which is devoid of speech. Inscribing involves speech and no one can be compelled to either speak or be silent. This is well established by law. So nice straw man try.

Some are also turning to the court decision against Masterpiece Cakeshop, which refused business from a gay couple in search of a wedding cake. In the December 2013 decision, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer repeatedly drew a distinction between refusing service to an individual and refusing to inscribe a specific message on a cake, noting:


Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church.

However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like.


If your religion forbids whites and blacks to marry, you cannot refuse to serve mixed couples or rent them a home, or allow them in your hotel. You may decline to say happy anniversary to them, you may decline to speak to them at all, but you must serve them the same you would any other couple. That was the problem with the Indiana law prior to being amended and the Arkansas bill prior to being amended. If giving businesses legal protection to discriminate was not the purpose for this law, it had none as the Federal law already provided the basic protection. The only need for a state provision is to go beyond Federal regulations as a state cannot have lower level of civil rights protections.