To you.

Context is irrelevant.

That was lame of you. The comparisons are very apt.

All speech is protected, for the person performing the act of speaking or writing (or printing and filming for that matter). It doesn’t matter what you or I or anyone else thinks about the quality or content of that speech.

The people at the PR firm may not want to support an anti-abortion campaign even with their labor. That is their right, and yes, this is not controversial in the slightest.

It doesn’t matter what YOU think of what is written, it matters what the person writing thinks about what they are writing.

And you would be wrong, in the USA at least. One can’t be compelled to write any message.

Writing and saying are the same thing in the 1st amendment.

In the USA we do. That’s why it is not the 2nd or tenth amendment, but the 1st.

It may be a statement against their religion. They don’t need a reason however.

And he can refuse to make certain signs for the same reason.

“Discrimination” by itself is not inherently bad - your “discriminate” everyday by making decisions. Not writing words one disagrees with is discriminating, and is protected in the USA because the freedom to speak (or not speak) is protected. Their personal reasons for discriminating here are irrelevant.

rootrevolution is at this point being purposefully dense.

Congratulations Charlie is not a political statement. They can care or not If the baker hates for whatever reason everyone named Charlie, he need not write it.

Too bad what you think. In most cases the bakery doesn’t care what they write on cakes. That’s their right.

Irrelevant here.

This is a free speech by the cake baker issue.

That’s what free speech means - the ability to speak in whatever political fashion one likes, and to not speak in others.

Yeah, but as a Jew you’d sell your grandma if someone wanted to buy her. /s

Sorry, speech IS special in the Constitution. Forcing someone to write a message they fundamentally disagree with IS violating their rights.