Bake in business ….

While most Americans would likely consider the foremost practical application of the First Amendment to be that they cannot be prevented from expressing their views, an arguably more important application is that they cannot be forced to express views with which they disagree. The government cannot compel speech or expression, especially when that expression violates a person’s constitutionally protected religious or philosophical views. Whether you like
it or not, millions of people in the United States (Jewish, Christian, Mormon, and Muslim people) have religious objections to same-sex marriage, and those objections are constitutionally protected. The essential issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is not that Jack Phillips refused service to anyone–and he did not refuse service–but rather that he refused artistic expression (in the form of a wedding cake) in contradiction to his constitutionally protected religious convictions about marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was therefore congruent with the Constitution, and that is a good thing, because I don’t want to live in a nation where the government can coerce anyone to express a view that is contrary to his or her convictions. And I can’t help but feel shocked and saddened by how many people are plainly ignorant of this rudimentary truth about the purpose of the First Amendment: If you can use the blunt instrument of government coercion to compel speech in support of your views, the very same can be done to you, and it probably will be done to you. We should take caution not to change the rules because it’s expedient now. We don’t know what the world might look like twenty years hence or whether we’ll prefer to live by the rules we’ve made.