Without getting into the merits of the sides in the case, let’s examine some statements made in the gay rights vs. religious freedom case heard by the Supreme Court.
1. Making a cake is speech.
2. Making a cake is speech because it is art.
3. But, designing wedding invitations, designing jewelery or artistically styling hair are not art.
4. Making designer clothes is not art.
5. A chef cooking food is not engaging in art.
OK, making any other food but cake is not art, but making cake is. Because God said so. Or maybe Marie Antoinette said so. Maybe we should name it the doctrine of American Cake Exceptionalism.
Who says lawyers are dull? I would never have thought of such bewilderingly bizarre arguments even if I worked on it 100 years.
I don’t mind arguments about whether anti-discrimination trumps freedom to religious beliefs or vice-versa but this is ingenious. Hilariously ingenious.
What is more hilarious is that among the so-called strict letter-of-the-law judges, the so-called believers of textualism, at least four of them all nodded their heads as if to say, “Yep, cake is speech. Yup whatever you said is absolutely right.” This is nothing new from the people who gave us the brilliant innovation that corporations are people. But, of course, we should not call them judicial activists because they need a veneer of faux respectability.
This cabal has no shame.
Prasenjit Mitra, State College