Whats funny is you seem to think its done and over with.<quoted text>
No, he's not. Face it LackofRespect71, you have no legal leg to stand upon. The court has already addressed and refuted your argument. Their ruling carries the weight of law. You opinion and $2.25 will get you a ride on the NYC Subway.
"Respondents argue that compelling them to prepare a cake for a same-sex wedding is equivalent to forcing them to speak in favor of same-sex weddings something they are unwilling to do. Indeed, the right to free speech means that the government may not compel an individual to communicate by word or deed an unwanted message or expression. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)(compelling a student to pledge allegiance to the flag invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our
Constitution to reserve from all official control); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 (1977)(compelling a motorist to display the states motto,Live Free of Die, on his license plate forces him to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable.) The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents argument that preparing a wedding
cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected speech, or that
compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the
equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to an ideological point of view. There is
no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as speech, as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto. United States v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968)(We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled speech whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.)6 The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that
could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding.7
Therefore, Respondents claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious. The act of preparing a cake is simply not speech warranting First Amendment protection."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;