7 thoughts on “The Coming SCOTUS Term”

  1. Interesting that Rand mentions that the issue with cakes is not the baking, it is in the decorating.

    Is the baker in question willing to bake a cake for whoever will purchase one, using that cake for whatever purpose? But that the baker has “terms of use” as to what message or messages he will not place on the cake?

    So how is the cake baker in Colorado or wherever different between Messrs. Dorsey and Zuckerman placing “terms of use” on their messaging services?

    But if the customer wanted some generic message that doesn’t differentiate between a same-sex or different-sex wedding, shouldn’t the baker just plain sell the cake and move on?

    Terms of use, bay-bee! Terms of use!

    1. If a customer wants to buy a cake off the shelf, I’m sure that the baker is indifferent to that person’s sexual orientation. It is the bespoke nature of a wedding cake, in terms of tiers and decorations, that is problematic. It is commissioning art, that in this case violates the conscience of the artist.

  2. IMO, the issue is the state forcing participation in ideological ceremonies. This is the establishment of a state religion.

  3. As a freedom radical I believe any business should lawfully be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

  4. “…lawfully be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.”

    I once was a service-providing business(es) owner (25Y).

    I denied service to folks who had no money, were inebriated, a ‘few beers short of a six-pack’ (once, in actuality: 6 was the agreement; 3 didn’t cut it), some folks who thought my office was their backyard for their kids, way too many folks who believed I should work for free, folks I didn’t like, folks who didn’t like me, parasitic family members, parasitic friends, folks who said I was dumb (too close to the truth), street walkers, druggies stumbling in off the street, etc.

    I never turned down a paying democrat. They owed me.

Comments are closed.