It's hardly a new angle (at all). In fact, it's so old there is a palpable stench of decay about it.
Lets take a look at the article:
Americans enjoy the freedom to associate with and without whom we wish. This liberty is enshrined in merchants’ placards that read: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
Merchants do not have an unrestricted right to refuse service, despite what the placards read.
The US Civil Rights Act does not allow merchants to deny service to a member of the public on the basis of characteristics such as race, colour, religious belief, sex, sexual orientation or nationality. Similarly, US case law generally frowns on refusal service for arbitrary reasons, such as disfigurement or pieces of attire.
An atheist baker who prefers not to associate with Bible-waving Baptists should be free to refer them elsewhere. Conversely, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim bakers should be free to invite gay couples to order their cakes from bakers who welcome their business.
If you are a merchant operating a business in the public market and providing service to the public, then you cannot be selective about which section of the public you serve and which you don't.
If you do, this is known as discrimination.
Likewise, a baker who also runs the Houston chapter of the Climate Action Network should not be forced to make a cake honoring Exxon’s Oil Man of the Year.
Here, we get a little trickier. Businesses are not considered as member of the public. As such a business is not a protected class under the US civil rights acts.
So, a baker could, in fact, refuse to offer their product to Exxon and legally they'd be fine doing so.
If a judge can force a Christian baker to use her frosting pen to write on a cake, “Happy Wedding Day, Bill and Ted,” that same judge could force a pro-NARAL baker to use a frosting pen to adorn a cake with the words “Abortion is murder.”
This would be a case of compelled speech, not discrimination.
The recent court decisions about the Colorado bakery found that “the act of designing and selling a wedding cake to all customers free of discrimination
does not convey a celebratory message about same-sex weddings likely to be understood by those who view it.”
In contrast, writing “Abortion is murder” would be a case of compelled speech, as it would convey a message about an ideological position, in this case re abortion and murder.
If frosting pens do not involve free speech, how about calligraphy pens? Compelling a fundamentalist Muslim calligrapher to write an invitation to the wedding of Simon and Shlomo is no less oppressive than demanding that Rachel Maddow whip out a pen and write the words, “America needs Donald J. Trump.”
Again, if the Muslim calligrapher is offering their services to the public, they cannot discriminate against any of the protected classes. Demanding that Rachel Maddow write the words, “America needs Donald J. Trump." is compelled speech, and would therefore violate her First Amendment rights.
Denying a women the right to choose whether or not to take pictures at a wedding constitutes art at gunpoint. Just ask Elaine Huguenin, whom New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled must photograph a lesbian wedding. (The U.S. Supreme Court spurned her appeal.) What could be more un-American than that? Rather than militate solely for religious liberty, conservatives and libertarians should rail against coerced speech and compulsory expression.
What could be more un-American than discrimination based on someone's sexual orientation? The US Declaration of Independence notes that "all men are created equal", and the Eighth Amendment requires equal protection under the law for all citizens.
Why then, should religious beliefs be any exemption to equal treatment for all citizens when doing business?
If bakers must spend hours and hours creating cakes unwillingly, this is involuntary servitude.
No, it isn't. Disliking or having a religious objection to the person who has hired you for you services is not sufficient for this to be considered involuntary servitude.
Legally, involuntary servitude requires not only
compulsory service or labor performed against a persons will, but it also need to be
due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against that person
other than financial needs.
So, while they may not like doing it (I've done editing work for writers that I've positively LOATHED), there is no coercion by force or other measures (apart from equal protection under the law), thus no involuntary servitude.
