Willis Eschenbach slices this up perfectly. Trigger warning: he uses forbidden words.
Now, the issue in these cases has been, should a baker be forced by the government to make a special cake for something that offends the baker’s deeply held beliefs? In order to clarify the issues involved in this matter, let me ask the following two hypothetical questions, remembering that I am using forbidden words for effect. Here are the questions:
Should a Jewish baker be forced by the government to bake someone a special cake that says “Hitler was right to turn the kikes into soap!”?
… and …
Should a black baker be forced by the Government to bake someone a special cake that says “The KKK should hang every nigger that they can find!”?
That’s it for the banned words, they leave a bad taste in my mouth, but they make the point very clear. For me, the answer to both these questions is, Hell no, they shouldn’t be forced to do that!
And that highlights what I see as the difference between the Colorado baker case and the Woolworths case.
The difference is, in the baker’s case the Government is forcing one person to carry a message for another person. This is NOT what was going on at Woolworths. This is not about refusing service, religion, civil rights, or gay rights.
It is about refusing to be a messenger for words we disagree with, which is a very different thing.
What Can’t Be Said