Now, let\u2019s consider the facts of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The gay couple eventually selected a rainbow cake to celebrate their nuptials. This decision was every bit as expressive as the White House\u2019s decision to light up its fa\u00e7ade. Given the context and the occasion, the meaning was abundantly clear to even the most casual attendee. There is no ambiguity here.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a line, moreover, in Will\u2019s piece that demonstrates surprising ignorance about weddings despite the fact that Will has undoubtedly attended countless ceremonies in his long and illustrious career. Who has ever said that a wedding cake was primarily<\/em> food? No one wants the cake to taste like trash, but is that the reason that brides, moms, and wedding planners agonize over their cake choice? (Grooms are more likely to be indifferent.) No, they want the cake to be beautiful. They want it to be \u2014 dare I say it \u2014 a work of art. Rare is the person who attends the wedding reception eager to chow down on a piece of wedding cake. The common and nearly universal experience in weddings where the bride and groom have even the smallest budget to celebrate is the gathering of guests around the cake, to proclaim how \u201camazing\u201d it looks, to admire the specific aspects that make it special, the \u201cperfect\u201d cake for the perfect couple.<\/p>\n In ordinary circumstances, the artistry of cake designers is so obvious that it\u2019s presumed \u2014 the same with photographers, calligraphers, and florists. This obvious artistry is a reason why no one bats an eye when a baker refuses to design, say, a Confederate-flag cake. The message it is sending is staring you in the face. But a message may be implicit instead, present though not obvious, even if the artistry is. For example, does anyone believe that the prohibitions against sex discrimination would compel a fashion designer to create a dress for Melania or Ivanka Trump?<\/p>\n