Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Neo-Scholastic]

What do you propose should be the test for whether the production of a product is an act of speech, and when it is not?  Or are you suggesting that all products and their sale should be protected against anti-discrimination laws.

I've been very clear about the two criteria for permissible denial of service on a 1st Amendment basis:

1) bespoke products or design services
&
2) the intended product or service and/or its use has obvious significance OR, if its significance is otherwise unclear but expressly communicated and understood.

These laws are enacted to prevent such things as the de facto segregation that occurred during the Jim Crow era.  Majorities can and do make products and services inaccessible by implementing de facto networks of discrimination.

Even when the specific concerns of LBGTQ activists are wholly legitimate, any comparison between those struggles and the oppression and indignity of African-Americans living under segregation belittles the significance of the civil rights movement and is both inappropriate and shameful.

The lawyer would only be engaged in anti-Christian harassment if: (1) she was doing it repeatedly, which remains to be seen...

All the evidence seems to point in that direction. Or at least Philips has very good reasons for believing that the same individual asked for a wide variety of bizarre and offensive requests - marajauna cakes, pentagrams, a dildo topper, etc.