Ch. 4 - Speaking Wedding Cakes and Praying Pregnancy Centers

Chapter Title: Speaking Wedding Cakes and Praying Pregnancy Centers: Religious
Liberty and Free Speech in Neoliberal Jurisprudence
Book Title: In the Ruins of Neoliberalism

Book Subtitle: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West
Book Author(s): WENDY BROWN
Published by: Columbia University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/brow19384.8
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Columbia University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to In the Ruins of Neoliberalism
This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4
Speaking Wedding Cakes and Praying
Pregnancy Centers
Religious Liberty and Free Speech

in Neoliberal Jurisprudence
Private rights [must] not [be] allowed to become a basis

of predatory power.
—“Statement of Aims,” Mont Pelerin Society
IT IS a commonplace that for much of the twentieth century, the

First Amendment of the United States Constitution was a shield
against state, social, and corporate censorship or repression. It
was especially important in protecting expressions by vulnera-
ble minorities and political dissenters, but also by labor, the
press, entertainers, atheists, and others opposing hegemonic
norms and concentrated power. Then came the neoliberal rev-
olution, and with it, neoliberal jurisprudence—a framework for
interpreting the First Amendment on behalf of broad deregu-
lation, especially for corporate and religious interests. In recent
decades, the First Amendment has been wielded to enhance the
economic, social, and political powers of capital, ownership,
Christianity, and traditional morality. Corporations and Chris-
tian conservatives and their allies on the Supreme Court have

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
Wedding Cakes and Pregnancy Centers
employed it to release businesses from all manner of regulation

and to empower traditional gender and sexual norms against
constraints by equality or antidiscrimination law. Free speech
is the lead instrument here, but freedom of conscience (“free
exercise”) is a frequent, close, and sometimes necessary com-
panion. Their explicit or implicit intertwining and their embed-
ding in a discourse of deregulated markets constitutes a novel
political-legal force, the focus of this chapter.
The new First Amendment jurisprudence pushes back
against equality and antidiscrimination law in education,
employment, welfare, and commerce; against secularism in the
commercial and public sphere; against campaign finance limits
and transparency in politics; against truth in advertising; against
public health and safety regulation; and against informed
consumer choices and rights. Protection of speech or religious
conscience for individuals, groups, nonprofits, small businesses,
and large corporations has rendered every kind of democrati-
cally enacted equality provision vulnerable to being overturned
or undermined through individual exemptions. Supreme Court
decisions affirming this trend grow increasingly expansive and
bold. As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the dissent for the 2018
decision, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v.
Becerra, “the majority’s approach” to protecting free speech in
this case “threatens . . . the constitutional validity of much, per-
haps most, government regulation.”1
Many constitutional scholars have written about the mobi-
lization of the First Amendment by business and the religious
Right in recent decades.2 Most have focused on the deregula-
tory effects of the new First Amendment jurisprudence and its
124

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
applications. More than deregulation, however, is at stake in the

expanded meaning and reach of First Amendment freedoms
today, which is why it is important to focus on how free exer-
cise and free speech work together. Twinned, they have been
mobilized to challenge the significance of social powers in
democracies and to empower traditional morality against equal-
ity mandates—the themes of the previous three chapters. Far
from securing and protecting political dissent, conscience, and
diverse private beliefs and neutral state, public, and commer-
cial spheres, the new jurisprudence mobilizes religious liberty
and free speech to permit the (re)Christianization of the public
sphere.3
Free speech, expansively interpreted and applied to many
kinds of entities and varieties of “expression,” pushes back
against democratic mandates legitimately organizing commer-
cial, public, and social life. Free exercise, expansively interpreted
and applied to many kinds of entities and their relationships,
opens the way to religiously based practices legitimately orga-
nizing commercial, public, and social life. Linked, as they are
in the cases I am about to discuss, a novel power is born to chal-
lenge democracy. Thus, as it upholds a stream of First Amend-
ment challenges to laws of equality, regulated markets, and
secularism, the Supreme Court is helping to enact a twisted ver-
sion of the Hayekian dream—replacing democratically gov-
erned society with one organized by markets and traditional
morality, under the sign of freedom.
The techniques of this replacement involve three important
designations: the designation of everything from money, to
cakes, to advertising, to posted legal notices and much else as
125

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
“speech”; the designation of corporations, small businesses, and

nonprofits as entities that “speak”; and the designation of spe-
cific acts, practices, and laws as “controversial” among those
with “deeply held beliefs.” Together, these designations permit
escapes from laws claimed to endanger free exercise or compel
speech. Combined with the court’s inclination to expand priv-
ileges of ownership and grant civil rights to associations and
corporations, the effect is to empower capital and restrict labor,
empower religionists and restrict secularism, and threaten half
a century of legislation and adjudication designed to rectify the
historical subordination or marginalization of women and racial
and sexual minorities. Moreover, taking the place of these
groups in the spotlight for legal protection or redress is a dif-
ferent pool of the ostensibly ostracized or victimized: businesses
and moral-religious traditionalists.4
In this developing jurisprudence, First Amendment liberties
are expanded beyond their classical civic meaning and even
beyond a market meaning. Rather, they are freighted with a
comprehensive neoliberal charge, pushing back against the
overweening regulatory and social state that imposes schemes
of justice where the spontaneous orders generated by markets
and morals ought to prevail. The named enemy is the state, easy
enough to vilify in any iteration of liberalism. But behind this
charge is the real enemy— an engorged democratic project that
valorizes equality, expands political power, and contrasts with
the spontaneous orders and outcomes, and hence the freedom,
of a world of markets and morals.
We turn now to two recent Supreme Court decisions illus-
trating the work of this jurisprudence.
126

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
Speaking Cakes: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado

Civil Rights Commission
Notwithstanding the victory cries of the Christian right and the

laments of LGBT activists about the outcome of Masterpiece
Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, pundits and legal
scholars largely concur that the case came in with a bang and
went out with a whimper.5 Evidently determining that the case
was not a “clean vehicle” for adjudicating the larger issues, the
court delivered a narrow ruling focused on the failure of the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission to be religiously neutral in
its hearings on the case.6 However, the case and the court and
concurring opinions reveal the opening of a new front and a new
jurisprudential arsenal in the battle between traditional moral-
ity and social justice. It is far more than a rearguard action from
the Right in the aftermath of the court’s legalization of same-
sex marriage in 2014. The concurring opinion by Neil Gorsuch
and Clarence Thomas, in which almost all antidiscrimination
law in commerce is treated as potentially abridging free speech,
is particularly foreboding.
In the encounter that led to the case, Jack Phillips, the Col-
orado baker who owned Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused a
request by two Colorado men to make a cake for their wedding
celebration. The incident occurred in 2012, before Obergefell v.
Hodges legalized same-sex marriage across the land. However,
the men had married in Massachusetts, where same-sex wed-
dings were legal, and wanted to celebrate with friends and fam-
ily in Colorado. After Phillips’s refusal to provide one of his
custom cakes for the occasion, the couple filed a complaint with
127

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) accusing Phil-

lips of violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. That
act, among other things, protects against discrimination based
on sexual orientation by “a place of business engaged in any sales
to the public and any place offering services to the public.” Phil-
lips, however, cited his religious liberty and free speech rights
as the basis of his refusal: his religious faith deemed that same-
sex marriage was wrong, and being compelled to create a cake
to celebrate a same-sex marriage would force him to use his art-
istry to “speak” against his beliefs.
A CCRC investigation took place, its findings were submit-
ted to an administrative law judge, and the commission con-
cluded that the couple’s civil rights had indeed been violated by
Phillips’s refusal. It rejected Phillips’s argument that the First
Amendment allowed him to refuse to “exercise his artistic tal-
ents to express a message with which he disagreed” and rejected
as well his claim that being forced to make a cake for a same-
sex wedding celebration violated his free exercise of religion.
Phillips appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld
the CCRC position. The Colorado Supreme Court declined to
hear the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court took it up in 2017.
In its ruling, the court declined to rule on the free speech
argument and did not even rule substantively on the free exer-
cise claim. Instead, it found that the Civil Rights Commission
had violated Phillips’s free exercise because a transcript revealed
that the commission had failed to be religiously neutral in its
hearings and deliberations. One commissioner decried ways that
“freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination
throughout history,” citing slavery and the Holocaust, and
referred to this practice as “one of the most despicable pieces of
128

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
rhetoric that people can use” in order to “use their religion to

hurt others.” The Supreme Court majority seized on these sen-
tences and the fact that they went unremarked by the other
commissioners to rule that the commission failed to treat Phil-
lips’s religious beliefs neutrally and respectfully. It found that
the commission disparaged Phillips’s religion “in at least two
distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by char-
acterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and
even insincere.” 7
When it reversed the Colorado Court of Appeals judgment,
the Supreme Court did not settle any of the complex or con-
troversial issues in the case: whether Phillips’s cake baking is
artistic expression, hence expressive conduct, hence free speech;
whether a wedding cake itself is a kind of speech, and thus
whether being compelled to bake one for an event that one con-
siders sinful constitutes forced speech or a violation of religious
freedom; whether an owner is equivalent to a business or
whether or how an owner or a business are bound to the mean-
ing or message of the product they make or sell; whether refus-
ing to provide a cake for a gay marriage constitutes refusal to
create and sell to gay people or only to their marriage, that is,
whether it discriminates against persons or only— as Phillips
sought to establish with his offer to make cakes for other occa-
sions for the couple— acts. As Justices Thomas and Gorsuch
lament in their concurring opinions, in ruling only on the com-
mission’s failure to perform state neutrality toward religion,
the court did not decide the case.
Still, both the case and the opinions are rich sources for under-
standing how the First Amendment is being used to privilege
traditional morality and undermine democratic determinations
129

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
of equality and justice in commercial, public, and social life.

The argument that Jack Phillips’s First Amendment rights
would be violated by requiring Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake
and sell a cake for a same-sex wedding is built on a constella-
tion of claims, none of which could stand on their own. This
constellation links free speech and free exercise to make a new
space and power for traditional morality in the public realm.
Moreover, the constellation itself is built on a set of oscillations
and substitutions—between ownership and artistry, creation
and provision, expression and semiotics.
Owner or Artist?
Jack Phillips is described by the court not merely as a baker or

business owner, but as an expert baker, a business owner, and
an artist; each of these different identities comes into play at dif-
ferent moments in the majority opinion, and the case could
rest on none of them alone. Phillips is also depicted not merely
as religious, but as a “devout Christian whose main goal in life
is to be obedient to Jesus Christ and Christ’s teachings in all
aspects of his life.” He is a man, the court reports, who “seeks
to honor God through his work at Masterpiece Cakeshop.”8
From the beginning, then, Phillips’s religious belief and
devotion is unconfined, extending to his (co)ownership of the
bakery, his work within it, and his artistic craft. This character-
ization prepares Masterpiece Cakeshop as a miniature of
Hobby Lobby, the corporation that sued for and won the legal
right to withhold insurance coverage for certain kinds of birth
control for its employees. As with the Green family, which
130

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
owned Hobby Lobby, Phillips’s Christianity is formulated as

saturating his ownership and controlling every aspect of his
business.9
However, the case does not turn on Phillips’s ownership,
even as it presumes and mobilizes it in identifying his bakeshop
with his faith.10 Rather, the petitioners rest Phillips’s violated
free speech rights on his status as an artist. Were the case to
depend on ownership, this would weaken the free speech
claim and raise the flag of discrimination—violation of public
accommodations law—in Phillips’s refusal of custom. As Ken-
nedy writes for the court, “The baker, in his capacity as the
owner of a business serving the public, might have his right
to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable
laws.”11 So it is Phillips’s artistic work that must carry his reli-
gious liberty, even though nowhere in the case are Phillips’s
artistic talents explicitly linked to his religious beliefs. Nor
do any of the wedding cakes on his website feature Christian
themes, iconography, or messages; rather, they range from
hyperbolically romantic to playful to baroque.12
Phillips’s status as a Christian owner of an enterprise, on the
other hand, is discussed at length in Justice Thomas’s concur-
ring opinion, where it is offered as evidence for the extent to
which his religious beliefs permeate the shop—its Sunday clo-
sure and its refusal to make Halloween goods, cakes with alco-
hol, or cakes with certain kinds of messages, including those
criticizing God. For Thomas, all of this establishes that Phil-
lips’s Christian faith exceeds his concern with profit, hence that
the bakery is an extension of his religious beliefs, which in turn
makes the baked goods “expressive” of these beliefs.13
131

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
A conundrum then: If it is only Phillips’s artistry that car-

ries his potential free speech rights, why discuss all the ways in
which Phillips’s religious beliefs suffuse his management of
Masterpiece Cakeshop (e.g. Sunday closure, refusal to bake
Halloween goods, etc.)? Why not focus exclusively on artistry
as speech? Only through ownership does religious liberty per-
mit the bakeshop, and not just Phillips, to refuse to make a cake.
This is what makes the silence about Phillips’s employees—
noted by Lawrence Glickman in a comment on the case in the
Boston Review—so loud and significant. As with the Hobby
Lobby decision, ownership is being empowered as Christian
ownership, capital is obtaining civil rights as Christian capital.
In Hobby Lobby, this ownership expands control over the lives
of employees; in Masterpiece Cakeshop, it expands control over
the lives of consumers. The petitioners’ crafting of the case,
reiterated without contest in the majority and concurring opin-
ions, implicitly ties religious liberty to commercial ownership,
not just to persons. This crafting, however, also makes it difficult
to determine which is the Trojan horse for moving traditional
morality into the public sphere—religion or speech, ownership
or artistry. Is it the artist or the owner who is wrongly compelled?
Or is the artist the front for the owner?
Artist or Purveyor?
The case also oscillates between Phillips’s artistry as a baker and

Phillips’s provision of baked goods for (sinful or sacrilegious)
events as the scene of his potentially violated rights.14 Although
it is a simple fact that Phillips’s business is a bakery, not an
132

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
art studio or gallery, the petitioners and the court draw on

Phillips’s artistry to formulate his wedding cakes as “speech.”
Clearly, Phillips puts inordinate care into the preparation of
his custom cakes, takes pride in the work, and wants the cakes
to be beautiful and admired. The court underlines these things
in describing Phillips’s close consultation with bridal couples
and occasional appearances at wedding receptions for the cake
ceremony. Regardless of one’s views about same-sex mar-
riage, all of this generates inevitable sympathy for Phillips.
Who should be required to create for what they regard as
abominations?
Ultimately, however it is not the art that petitioners cast as
the site of the rights violation. Phillips believes that “God’s
intention for marriage is that it is and should be the union of
one man and one woman,” and the court affirms that creating
a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding “would be equivalent
to participating in a celebration that is contrary to his own most
deeply held beliefs.”15 Artistry makes no appearance in that sen-
tence, just as it makes no appearance in an episode discovered
by the Colorado Civil Rights Division investigator in which
Phillips refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their
commitment ceremony because the shop “had a policy of not
selling baked goods to same sex couples for this type of event.”16
There are no artists here, no wedding cakes, or even any
marriages— only shops, policies, baked goods, and events cel-
ebrating particular kinds of couples. Phillips seeks to refuse cus-
tom at his bakery—not just his artistry—for the celebration of
same-sex unions because of his religious objection to the union.
Both Phillips and the court use the fact of his artistry to expand
133

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
speech rights for businesses and to circumvent public accom-

modations law.
So why the ruse? The focus on refusing to make art for same-
sex unions makes the refusal act or event-based, rather than
person-based, allowing escape from concern with discriminat-
ing against a protected class. Phillips says he will “bake cakes
for the birthdays and showers” (!), but not the weddings of cli-
ents he refuses. The petitioners in Hobby Lobby made the same
distinction, targeting certain types of contraception, rather than
the women who would use them. Of course, if certain acts, such
as marrying your partner or having access to an IUD or Plan
B, are fundamental to your equality, the act-person distinction
liquefies, which is why laws securing rights to these things were
matters of equality law in the first place. That said, the focus
on same-sex unions makes the refusal act-based or event-based,
rather than person-based, allowing escape from concern with
discrimination. Yet the act-person distinction is what permits
the religious objection from appearing discriminatory as it per-
petuates inequality. The distinction protects freedom while
rebuffing state-mandated egalitarianism. It permits objectors to
avoid complicity with a sinful act while also avoiding being tar-
nished with bigotry. It frames the objector as hating the sin,
but not the sinner, and seeking only the personal right to fol-
low their own God. By contrast, the state that would compel
their conduct appears invasive, dogmatic, one-sided, and illib-
eral. Freedom and Christianity are thus allied and preserved,
together opposing statism, social justice, and social engineer-
ing: Hayekianism realized.
134

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
Artistic Expression or the Semiotics of Cake?
The petitioners rest Phillips’s right to refuse to make a wedding

cake for a same-sex couple on the argument that his artistry as
a baker is a form of “expressive conduct,” i.e., speech. This is the
argument that Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas forthrightly
accept in their concurring opinions and that the majority opin-
ion presents in a favorable light. Yet Phillips’s artistry is a red
herring in the legal argument, a rhetorical device that produces
great sympathy for Phillips while not being the actual basis of
his free speech claim. Phillips acknowledges as much, and Jus-
tice Thomas makes it even clearer in his concurring opinion: the
case rests not on Phillips’s speech, but on the meaning, hence
the speech, of a wedding cake.
A wedding cake, the petitioners declare, “inherently commu-
nicates that a wedding has occurred, a marriage has begun,
and the couple should be celebrated.”17 More than merely com-
municating these things, Justices Alito and Gorsuch declare in
their concurring opinion, “like an emblem or a flag,” the cake
“is a symbol that serves as a short cut from mind to mind
signifying approval of a specific system, idea or institution.”18
And Justice Thomas writes, “forcing Phillips to make custom
wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the
very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are ‘weddings’
and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise mes-
sage he believes his faith forbids.”19 For Phillips, “to create a
wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that goes
against the teachings of the Bible would have been a personal
135

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
endorsement and participation in the ceremony and relationship

that they were entering into.”20
It is not Phillips who speaks with his art, then, but the cake
that speaks, by virtue of being a wedding cake. As Justice
Thomas is at pains to establish in his remarkable disquisition
on the singular nature of wedding cakes, while rarely valued for
its taste, the cake is an indispensable element of weddings: “No
wedding, no matter how Spartan, is missing the cake,” and “if
an average person walked into a room and saw a white, multi-
tiered cake, he would immediately know that he had stumbled
upon a wedding.”21 The potential for compelled speech there-
fore rests neither on Phillips’s artistry nor on religious dictates
about wedding cakes—there is no mention of cake in the Bible.
Rather, the potential for compelled speech hails from Phillips’s
belief that weddings, for which the cake is a synecdoche, are the
hallmark of unions dictated by God and of investiture of this
belief, by Phillips, in the wedding cakes that he makes. The cake
speaks wedding; according to Phillip’s faith, only certain peo-
ple are eligible for weddings; celebrating weddings of the ineli-
gible goes against God.
Crucially, absent Phillips’s religious beliefs about weddings
and marriage and his folding of these beliefs into his wedding
cakes along with the flour and sugar, it does not matter if the
cake is art or if Phillips is an artist. According to Justice Thomas
(and Jacques Derrida), Phillips does not control the significa-
tion of wedding cake or even the meaning of “wedding” or
“marriage,” although of course he longs to do so. Rather, the
cake bears for Phillips the meaning he attributes to marriage,
136

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
that it is a sacred and exclusively heterosexual event, which is

why Phillips will not sell any “baked goods” to homosexuals
trying to participate in it. Put the other way around, the argu-
ment that Phillips’s wedding cakes are his speech rests not on
his artistry, but on his conviction about the divine sacrament of
heterosexual marriage and corresponding belief that homosex-
ual marriage goes against God, and his investment of that reli-
gious conviction in his cakes. His cakes carry that religious
meaning for him, though not necessarily for others and thus not
necessarily when they “speak” wedding at the events they adorn.
Phillips himself speaks, then, not through his art, but through
his willingness or refusal to provision for events he believes to
be divinely ordained or condemned. Indeed, the instability and
ultimate lack of force in the claim that Phillips “speaks” with
his artistry is evident in the inability of petitioners and the
court’s opinion to settle whether what Phillips aims to withhold
with his refusal is his “speech,” his “participation,” his “endorse-
ment,” or his “recognition” of the same-sex wedding.
At this point, an obvious question emerges: If it is the wed-
ding cake, rather than Phillips’s art that speaks, and if the cake,
in speaking “wedding,” does not speak as Phillips, why pursue
the free speech argument at all? Why not concentrate exclu-
sively on Phillips’s free exercise of religion? In effect, this is
what the court’s narrow ruling did. However, to understand why
the petitioners and the court give the speech argument so much
airtime, despite its rickety footing, we need grasp the political
strategy that depends on binding conscience to speech such that
religion can exercise more power in the commercial and public
137

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
sphere. The court and much commentary tend to treat the two
claims separately and sequentially. In fact, they are crucially
bound together in a new antidemocratic constellation.
Free Exercise as Free Speech
Free speech is the means by which free exercise is extended into

the commercial and public sphere, where, the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission argued, “religious beliefs cannot legiti-
mately be carried.”22 The court interpreted the CCRC’s posi-
tion as religious nonneutrality, with its implication that “religious
beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s
business community.” This statement, however, cloaks, rather
than opens up the argument about secularism contained in this
dispute.
A secular liberal democracy authorizes the protection of one’s
religious values as a private right, generally limiting enactment
of these values to comportment with secular law protecting the
public interest. Even after the 1993 passage of the federal Reli-
gious Freedom Restoration Act, which strengthened the test for
this comportment, when exemptions from federal mandates are
sought on the basis of religious requirements or beliefs, the
public interest remains the threshold criterion. Religious liberty
to believe and worship as one chooses is not expected to bur-
den third parties, which is why Douglas NeJaime and Riva Sie-
gel regard the recent turn to “complicity-based conscience
claims” as so troubling.23 Exercise of one’s religious liberty is not
supposed to bear upon those outside the faith and is not gen-
erally concerned with public or commercial exercise of religious
138

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
values, but with protection from discrimination or, at the extreme,

persecution. Thus, individuals whose faith designates Saturday
as the Sabbath have sought exemption from rules about qual-
ifying for unemployment benefits; those whose faith requires
head coverings sought loosened requirements for photographs
for federal documents, where coverings are normally prohib-
ited; the Amish famously obtained exemptions from mandates
for educating youngsters through the age of sixteen. Each of
these exemptions were based on the conclusion that the public
interest was not sacrificed for the protection of religious wor-
ship.24 When free exercise brushes against widely accepted
norms or generally applicable law, it has been due to a funda-
mental belief about personally appropriate practices of dress,
food, family, or worship that those norms and laws constrain
or violate. Historically, then, the exercise of religious liberty is
not centered on the public exercise of religious values, but autho-
rizes and protects one’s personal relationship to conscience or
the divine.25
Freedom of speech is the obverse. Meaningless in the pri-
vate realm or personal relationships, free speech signifies the
right to say in public what one wants to say and only what one
wants to say. It is a right to speak in an unrestricted and unforced
public fashion even if some are disturbed or wounded by one’s
speaking. The right of free speech at once acknowledges and
subordinates concerns of third parties and public culture to that
right. It is a right exercised in public and may well shape the
public realm and how it is experienced by others. Impor-
tantly, it also carries a great deal of our individual public
power in democracies, which is why it is fundamental to
139

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
democratic citizenship and why extending it to corporations is

so consequential.26
What is developing today as a right-wing political and legal
strategy is this: free speech takes free exercise by the hand, pulls
it into the public and commercial world, and uniquely empow-
ers it there. Only by treating Phillips’s cake making as speech
can actions based on his religious beliefs circumvent public
accommodations law. By itself, as the CCRC argues and the
court acknowledges in its decision, Phillips’s right to free exer-
cise cannot permit discrimination. Only the conjoining of free
speech and free exercise, achieved by insisting that Phillips’s
cake making is art and that art is speech, permits exercise of
his religious convictions as speech in the public and commer-
cial realm and, conversely, makes the case for his commercial
speech as the vehicle of his private religious convictions. Indeed,
only through the artful conjoining of free speech and free exer-
cise can one make sense of this otherwise bewildering sum-
mary of Phillips’s claim by the court: “requiring him to create
a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free
speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to
express a message with which he disagreed and would violate
his right to the free exercise of religion.”27
In this sentence, the sheer number of prepositions and verbs
and lack of subordinate clauses makes it nearly impossible to
specify the source or site of the violation. Where, precisely, is
the action? Requiring the creation of a cake does not violate a
right to free speech. Compelling exercise of artistic talents to
express a message with which one disagrees does not violate
one’s First Amendment rights. (Commercial artists presumably
140

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
do this all the time at the behest of their bosses or managers.)

And creating a cake for a wedding does not violate one’s free
exercise of religion any more than being required, commercially, to
exercise one’s artistic talents to express a message with which one
disagrees. However, all of these phenomena pressed together—
required creation of art expressing a message contrary to one’s
religious beliefs—bolstered by the unmentioned right of com-
mercial ownership, sets free exercise loose in the public and
commercial sphere and generates the scene of its entitlement
to discriminate, indeed, to abridge laws of equality. This is more
than constitutional constructivism. This is the U.S. Supreme
Court empowering a revolutionary antidemocratic force through
a novel joining together of ownership, religion, and speech.
There are some cracks in this new configuration, produced
in part by the fact that it is a political strategy and thus politi-
cizes the religious claim it seeks to bolster. Free speech secures,
among other things, the right to political dissent. Free exercise
secures one’s right to personal beliefs and faith. As the case
slides toward protecting political dissent, it slides away from
protecting religious practice. Because there is nothing about
cake making or artistry in scripture or any other religious code,
the grip that free speech has on free exercise requires the sup-
plement of claims about artistry and ownership. It is thus
unclear that a nonproprietor at a bakery could claim that her
free exercise rights were violated by having to make wedding
cakes for all comers—presumably, she would simply have to
look for a different job. It is also unclear how many, if any, claims
apart from objection to same-sex marriage could carry the
religious investiture of Phillips’s refusal. His free exercise of
141

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
religion, then, is not really at stake. Rather, it is his combined

status as property owner, baker, and Christian that enables
him to mount a resistance to what is now the law of the land.
This reveals the strategy as carrying a nihilistic spirit, dis-
cussed in chapter 5, in which religion is less the basis than the
instrument of political dissent.28
No sooner was the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision announced
than the Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-LGBT orga-
nization representing Phillips, upped the ante. It is suing the
state of Arizona for prohibiting a pair of (beautiful, young,
white, female) commercial artists from posting a sign in their
business declaring their refusal to serve couples celebrating
same-sex unions.29 To my knowledge, the artists at Brush & Nib
have not been approached by any same-sex couples to create
wedding announcements or other wedding art. Rather, the alli-
ance is suing for the artists’ right to post a sign in their estab-
lishment or on their website that would be the equivalent of a
“whites only” placard at a segregated soda fountain in the 1950s.
The ADF writes: “While the case proceeds for Joanna, Bre-
anna, and Brush & Nib, they continue to create art reflecting
God’s beauty. And they hope to soon have the freedom to only
create that art and to fully explain their artistic and religious
beliefs to others. Alliance Defending Freedom is here to pro-
tect the right of creative professionals to use their God-given
talents in ways that are consistent with their beliefs.”30 This is
the next turn in the campaign for God and freedom in the pub-
lic sphere—businesses not merely exempt from public accom-
modations law, but promoting themselves on the basis of their
142

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
objections.31 There is no reason to expect this bid to be limited

to small businesses, to arts or crafts . . . or to concern with same-
sex marriage.
Praying Pregnancy Centers: National Institute of

Family Life Advocates, DBA NIFLA, et al.
v. Becerra, Attorney General of California
We turn now to a second case concerned with compelled speech

decided by the Supreme Court in 2018. In this one, petitioners
use the First Amendment as a deregulatory power to perpetu-
ate simultaneous concealment and expansion of their religiously
motivated policy aims into public space.
National Institute of Family Life Advocates, DBA NIFLA, et al.
v. Becerra, Attorney General of California (hereafter identified as
NIFLA) tested the constitutionality of California’s 2015 Repro-
ductive FACT Act. That act required unlicensed crisis preg-
nancy centers (hereafter identified as CPCs) to post a statement
that they are not medical facilities and required all CPCs to post
or distribute a statement identifying the availability of free or
low-cost comprehensive reproductive health care, including pre-
natal care and abortions, provided by the state of California.
Petitioners alleged that both notices abridged their freedom
of speech. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Thomas,
upheld this claim, arguing, “the FACT Act unduly burdens
protected speech. It imposes a government-scripted, speaker-
based disclosure requirement” while leaving “unburdened those
143

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
speakers whose messages are in accord with” the government’s

“own views.”32 In addition, the opinion argued that the FACT
Act perpetrated “viewpoint discrimination” against the CPCs
and that the speech it aimed to impose was “content based,”
rather than essential, uncontroversial, factual information.
None of the opinions in the case—majority, concurring, or
dissenting—explains the context and motivation for the FACT
Act, an absence that gives the decision a technical, rather than
political ring and downplays its significance for women’s repro-
ductive freedom. Without appreciation of what crisis preg-
nancy centers are and how they operate, it is impossible to
understand what the FACT Act aims to redress and why CPCs
resisted it so fiercely.
There are now approximately four thousand crisis pregnancy
centers in the United States. 33 Most obtain organizational,
financial, legal, and personnel support from large umbrella
organizations such as NIFLA, CareNet, and Heartbeat Inter-
national. 34 By all accounts, CPCs have one goal, which is to
convince women carrying unwanted pregnancies not to abort
them. However, their self-representation and techniques for
attracting clients intentionally obscure this goal and often their
religious backing, as well. That is because their target clientele
is women whom they call “abortion vulnerable”—women car-
rying unwanted pregnancies and seeking or considering an
abortion.35 As antiabortion activist Abby Johnson said of CPCs
at the annual Heartbeat International conference in 2012, “We
want to appear neutral on the outside. The best call, the best
client you ever get is one that thinks they’re walking into an
abortion clinic.”36
144

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
To this end, most CPCs indicate on their websites and other

materials that they offer “abortion counseling,” even if the fine
print may reveal that they do not provide or refer for abortions.
Reception staff are trained to dodge the question when poten-
tial clients ask on the phone if they provide abortions. CPCs
advertise a “supportive and non-judgmental” environment, “no
matter what you decide to do.” All claim to offer “unbiased, con-
fidential and free medical, educational and support services”
for women facing an unplanned pregnancy.37 Many CPCs pres-
ent themselves as providing a panoply of services related to
pregnancy although the unlicensed ones offer only a drugstore
pregnancy test (which the client must self-administer) and
“counseling” aimed at convincing women to carry their babies
to term. In many CPCs, even where there are no licensed med-
ical personnel, staff wear white lab coats or scrubs, request
health information on intake forms, and replicate the look and
feel of a medical office. Others appropriate the spirit and tone
of feminist groups. Claris Health, for example, (whose motto
is “Choices you can live with”), on its softly sleek website fea-
turing pictures of radiant young women of many hues, pro-
claims: “Claris Health’s story began over 40 years ago, when a
small group of women were inspired to start an organization
that offered life-changing services to women, men, and fami-
lies. Our mission from the start has been to empower individ-
uals to make fully informed pregnancy and sexual health
choices.”38
CPCs, which draw federal funding and are often subsidized
by state funds, as well, frequently locate near Planned Parent-
hood and other pro-choice clinics, at times even in the same
145

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
building, with the explicit aim of drawing off or confusing cli-

ents attempting to access those agencies. In a few cases, CPCs
have moved into the space of shuttered abortion clinics or
Planned Parenthood offices.39 Some use Planned Parenthood’s
initials in their signage (PP for “Problem Pregnancy”) or take
the name of a local comprehensive reproductive health clinic
with just one word altered, e.g. Oakland Women’s Center
instead of Oakland Women’s Clinic. CPC billboards, too, are
often intentionally designed to be mistaken for those of Planned
Parenthood. The national umbrella organizations sponsoring
the clinics dedicate substantial funds to pay-per-click meth-
ods for advertising their clinics in response to search engine
keywords such as “abortion” or “morning after pill.” 40 The San
Francisco Women’s Clinic, for example, appears at the top of a
Google search for “abortion clinic near me.” 41 CPCs are also
developing tools to reach clients via chat, text, and online video
appointments. 42
CPC “abortion counseling” may involve berating clients con-
sidering it, showing them pictures of mutilated fetuses or dead
women on gurneys, and of course, showing them pictures and
videos of fetuses in utero where the actual stage of development
may be fictionalized. Abortions are depicted as carrying greater
health risks than childbirth (perforated uterus, sepsis, death)
and as increasing the possibility of future miscarriage, suicide,
depression, drug addiction, infertility, breast cancer, and other
health problems.43 Abortion providers may be described as dan-
gerous, unscrupulous, greedy, and dirty. Some CPCs offer
misinformation about abortion availability, telling women that
they can delay their decision for many months or telling them
146

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
that miscarriage is likely and there is therefore no need to seek

a medical abortion. The developmental stage of the fetus the cli-
ent is carrying may be mischaracterized, the fetus is invariably
called a “baby” or “preborn baby,” and the client is referred to
as a “mom.” Staff occasionally pray with their clients over the
“baby” at the first visit.
Many CPCs are located near high schools or colleges to
attract the young and frightened. Others are located in neigh-
borhoods where other vulnerable constituencies are targeted—
poor and nonwhite women who may not have regular doctors,
health insurance, or other resources. Here the (often false) offer
of free health care, housing, and financial support is as impor-
tant as the medical misinformation in convincing women to
carry their pregnancies to term. Some CPCs also offer factu-
ally false information about the dangers of contraception—pills,
IUDs, even condoms—in an effort to get unmarried girls and
women to practice sexual abstinence.44
Not every crisis pregnancy center in the United States does
all of these things, but all do many of them. All obscure their
raison d’être by attempting to appear as neutral, all-purpose
resources for women with unplanned or “crisis” pregnancies,
hiding their Christian sponsorship and funding. None has a
commitment to science, facticity, transparency, or women’s
informed understanding of their legal and practical choices in
dealing with an accidental pregnancy.45
Crisis pregnancy centers may therefore be fairly character-
ized as engaging in deceptive self-representation and misinfor-
mation to exploit the needs, fears, and anxieties of women fac-
ing unplanned pregnancies. This is what the California FACT
147

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
Act aimed to address with its two simple requirements. First,

all licensed healthcare facilities must either post or distrib-
ute to clients the following statement: “California has public
programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to
comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-
approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion
for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact
the county social services office at [phone number].” Second, all
unlicensed CPCs must also post a notice indicating that they
are not licensed medical facilities.46 Neither requirement would
be controversial if abortion (and promotion of sexual absti-
nence) were not in the mix. Neither requirement would be
needed if CPCs were not engaged in so much dissimulation and
misinformation to advance their aims. The FACT Act was
imposed on a structurally duplicitous and exploitative industry
to correct for this duplicity.
In rejecting the constitutionality of the act, unlike the argu-
ments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, neither the NIFLA petitioners
nor the court invoke free exercise, even though the court
describes the petitioners as “a group of covered medical facili-
ties that object to abortion for religious reasons” and Justice
Kennedy’s concurring opinion refers to CPCs as “pro-life
pregnancy centers.” 47 The petitioners and the court thus throw
the same cloak over religion as CPCs do in order to attract
unwitting clients to their premises.48
And yet, free exercise is everywhere in this case. Protective
of the mission of CPCs and offering zero discussion of their
tactics, the court argues that the act forces CPCs to post or
provide information that compels speech in violation of “deeply
148

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
held beliefs.” The court also argues that the California law
does not impose factual disclosures, but a “viewpoint” in a
controversy. The treatment of CPCs as having free speech
rights is possible only by thoroughly identifying the “views” of
each center with its personnel—making shared belief constitu-
tive of their existence and purpose. Claiming that there is no
special meaning or class of “professional speech,” even while it
treats the centers as engaged in such speech, the court implic-
itly recognizes the belief-based status of the centers. The case is
a free speech case only because the court treats CPCs as com-
mitted to a position opposing abortion that the disclosures
potentially weaken, and yet does not identify this position with
religion. The court, like the CPCs, cares more about protect-
ing that political position, including protecting it from the
charge of offering faith-based care, than with protecting truth
in advertising, truth in medical provision, and the knowledge-
dependent autonomy of women seeking help with an unplanned
pregnancy. The court endorses the displacement of each by
traditional morality free from state interference and expanded
into the public sphere, precisely embodying the neoliberal
vision articulated in the three preceding chapters.
In fact, the majority opinion identifies abortion neither as a
right nor as a legally available medical procedure. Rather, it
depicts abortion as a subject of ethical controversy about which
the state has no right to impose its “viewpoint” or “preferred
message”; a topic on which dissenting views ought to be settled
in “the marketplace of ideas”; and a product to which the CPCs
object and should therefore not be required to “advertise.”
Together, these convert the disclosures required by the FACT
149

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
Act into what the court finds to be “content-based” and

“viewpoint-specific” speech. Justice Thomas writes for the
majority, “the FACT requirement is content based because it
compels individuals to speak a particular message and alters the
content of their speech” when “Centers have to provide a gov-
ernment drafted script about availability of state-sponsored
services which petitioners are devoted to opposing.” 49 However,
identifying the availability of such services only alters the con-
tent of the centers’ speech because they are committed to obscur-
ing this availability. The claim that the script alters the message
of the centers tacitly endorses the CPCs practice of dissimula-
tion and nontransparency, confirming that their “speech”
involves omission, deception, and denial that is countered by a
“government drafted script.” The claim recognizes that the cen-
ters are not the health providers they pretend to be, but engaged
in a political battle in which pregnant girls and women may be
unwitting because insufficiently informed pawns. At the same
time, in rejecting the principle that “professional speech” bears
any special restrictions under the First Amendment and reduc-
ing the speakers at issue to the individuals who staff CPCs, it
licenses religiously animated antiabortion advocates to front as
unregulated purveyors of professional services.
In this vein, it is significant that the court accords free speech
rights to the centers themselves, yet identifies individuals as
those whose speech the FACT Act “compels.” The required
notice about state-provided services, Justice Thomas writes,
compels “individuals to speak a particular message” as they
“provide a government-drafted script about the availability of
state-sponsored services,” one of which “is abortion.”50 In fact,
150

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
CPC personnel need not speak for the centers to comply with
the FACT Act, any more than individual workers “speak” the
messages contained in required postings about hygiene, safety,
or whistleblower protections hanging in their workplaces. Only
because center personnel are presumed committed to the duplic-
ity employed by the centers—only because they are part of the
staged deception— can the disclosures be considered to compel
their speech.
The argument that the disclosures compel speech also tacitly
confesses that the mission of CPCs is religious and political,
even as they purport to be health care providers. Were CPCs
to foreground their religion and politics (which would under-
mine their tactics), “professional speech” would not be at issue.
If they were forthrightly Christian antiabortion organizations
offering help to pregnant women seeking such help, discussion
of whether professional speech may be regulated would be irrel-
evant to the case. CPCs’ pretense that they are offering profes-
sional services to the public, however, requires the court to deal
with the question of whether professional speech may be sub-
jected to special restrictions, presumably comporting with the
ethics, knowledge, and responsibilities of the profession. The
court concludes that professional speech has the same First
Amendment protections as any other kind, a conclusion easy to
treat as simply animated by an antiregulatory spirit. This is what
Justice Breyer does in his dissent. While it unquestionably draws
on the majority’s impulses in this regard, the argument against
restricting professional speech does something far more signifi-
cant in permitting religiously animated antiabortion advocates
to front as unregulated purveyors of professional services.
151

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
Here is how this unfolds. Professions, Justice Thomas opines,

and hence professional speech, are impossible to define precisely,
and any effort to do so involves a nefarious statism, one giving
states an “unfettered power to reduce a group’s First Amendment
rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement.”51 Equally
dangerous in the attempt to restrict or regulate professional
speech, he adds, is the prospect of distorting the “uninhibited
marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.’”52
Citing Justice Holmes’s famous encomium that “the best test of
truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
competition of the market,” Justice Thomas ignores the CPCs’
strenuous efforts to distort this competition and to prevent
their own ideas from being transparent enough to be market
tested.53 If CPCs sought to have their truth prevail in an ideas
marketplace, they would forsake their ruses, misinformation,
and deceptions. They would not fear signs on the wall inform-
ing clients of the facts. That the court endorses their free speech
claim in the name of “an uninhibited marketplace of ideas”
perhaps says as much about standards for “free” markets today
as it does about “speech” today—neither of which would be rec-
ognizable as such in previous eras.
There is a second problem related to this one: What relation-
ship is Justice Thomas positing between a putatively free mar-
ket of ideas where competition yields a winner and the realm
of “deeply held beliefs” of those whose speech he claims is
wrongly compelled by the required disclosures? Even if one
accepts the validity of the “ideas market” for some things, how
does it bear on matters of conscience and religious faith? Is reli-
gious pluralism in a secular age really supposed to generate
152

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
winners from a competition? Isn’t the realm of faith where mar-

kets, competition, and other tests of belief are bracketed, where
individuals legitimately hold beliefs unaccountable to others, to
reason, or to truth? Isn’t this partly why belief and conscience
are given protected and private berth in secular democratic
orders?
If all this is so, Thomas’s invocation of a “free market of ideas”
for religious conviction operates as something of a revealing
slip in which a liberal principle considered appropriate to the
realm of marketing or politics is accidentally transposed into
the realm of faith . . . or in which the realm of faith is collapsed
into politics and marketing. The slip suggests the same nihilis-
tic symptom that we glimpsed in Masterpiece Cakeshop as it
casts belief into a marketplace where advertising, branding and
targeting populations are all appropriate means of competing
and winning. It mobilizes the ostensibly testable claims of
political speech for the untestable doctrines of faith, making
clear that the abortion battle is fundamentally political and that
the CPCs are politically motivated entities, despite obtaining
protection for their speech on the basis of conscience. It thus
reveals the court as permitting a free speech claim to provide a
cloak for religiously animated public agency; at the same time,
the court is permitting a religious claim to shield CPCs from
accountability to truth in advertising and other forms of regu-
lation. As with Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court is permitting
the vehicle of free speech to facilitate conservative Christiani-
ty’s escape from the private sphere to become a force in the com-
mercial and public one and at the same time is protecting it as
religion (“belief ”) from laws regulating commerce and public
153

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
life. This is the real significance of the court’s insistence that

there is nothing distinctive about “professional speech” in
considering the reach of the First Amendment. By simultane-
ously treating the case as one of the rights of professional speech
and as one of compelled speech at the site of deeply held beliefs,
the court creates a portal through which misrepresentation and
even fraud become protected speech. Truth, transparency, and
accountability all take a back seat to religious purposes dressed
up as professional services.
The court, however, spies a very different danger in this case.
It does not worry about truth, transparency, accountability, pro-
fessional norms, or potential exploitation of the vulnerable.
Rather, the distinctive danger identified in both the majority
and concurring opinions is imposing “state speech” on CPCs.
The danger is state-mandated disclosures, not Christian evan-
gelists masquerading in the white coats of the medical profes-
sion.54 Both the majority and concurring opinions go so far as
to identify the FACT Act with the statism of authoritarian or
totalitarian regimes. The state “speaks,” Justice Thomas writes,
not on behalf of public interest, public health, or democracy, but
with the power to “suppress unpopular ideas or information”
and advance its own “viewpoint.”55 Finding this typical of gov-
ernments that have historically “manipulated the content of
doctor-patient discourse” to increase state power and suppress
minorities, he quotes from legal scholar Paula Berg:
During the Cultural Revolution, Chinese physicians were

dispatched to the countryside to convince peasants to use
contraception. In the 1930s, the Soviet government expedited
154

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
completion of a construction project on the Siberian railroad

by ordering doctors to . . . reject requests for medical leave
from work. . . . In Nazi Germany . . . German physicians
were taught that they owed a higher duty to the “health of
the Volk” than to the health of individual patients. Recently,
Nicolae Ceausescu’s strategy to increase the Romanian birth
rate included prohibitions against giving advice to patients
about the use of birth control devices.56
Analogizing the FACT Act with repressive twentieth-century

regimes directly manipulating physicians and public health for
nefarious state ends may seem hyperbolic. Yet Thomas’s hyper-
bole is mild compared with that of Justice Kennedy. His short,
furious concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Gor-
such, lambasting California’s effort to regulate CPCs, denounces
“the viewpoint discrimination . . . inherent in the design and
structure” of the FACT Act through which the state’s “preferred
message advertising abortions . . . compels individuals to con-
tradict their most deeply held beliefs.”57 Adding that there is a
“real possibility that these individuals were targeted because of
their beliefs”—representing a persecution of minorities for their
dissent from the state’s position—Kennedy pounces on the
statement by the California legislative majority that the act’s
passage represents California’s legacy of “forward thinking.”58
Treating this declaration as the open confession of an ideologi-
cally animated state, Kennedy writes:
it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an

instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological
155

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” Wooley v. Maynard,

430 U.S. 705, 715 (977). It is forward thinking to begin by
reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to under-
stand the history of authoritarian government as the Found-
ers then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows
how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to
stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward. . . .
Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express
a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of
speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law
imperils those liberties.59
As both the majority and concurring opinions identify the

FACT Act with statist authoritarianism, they accuse Califor-
nia of forcing individuals to “speak” and “advertise” the state’s
own “position” in a “controversy.” Yet the FACT Act does not
stifle speech, and as we have seen, it is a stretch to claim that it
compels speech. The mandatory disclosures neither promote nor
advertise abortions, but simply correct for the deliberate and
systematic deceits of crisis pregnancy centers in pursuing and
servicing clients. California aims to ensure that citizens have
access to facts the CPCs do not want them to have. It is rightly
concerned about political operations pretending to be medical
facilities and misinforming the clientele it often lures under false
pretenses. The court, conversely, has tied back the hand of the
law so that religious evangelical institutions may operate in
unrestricted fashion in the sphere of public health. It has
done so by demonizing democratic legislation on behalf of the
156

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
public interest as authoritarianism and by widening the spheres

of both unregulated markets and morality.
The point is not the obvious one that the court sided with
antiabortion petitioners in NIFLA. Rather, it tacitly affirmed
and replicated CPC tactics as it accepted NIFLA’s framing of
the case. It facilitated the CPCs own use of the state—in which
they obtain public funds and First Amendment protection to
advance traditional morality, without regulation or oversight,
in the public domain, under the sign of freedom. At the same
time, without mentioning religious liberty, the court licensed
religious groups to operate freely in civic, commercial, and pub-
lic life. This depended on the following moves.
First, the court treated the disclosures required by the FACT
Act as speech advertising abortion and promoting the state’s
viewpoint in an ethical and political “controversy.” The desig-
nation of abortion as controversial is how the court turns facts
into viewpoints and health care information into advertising for
those viewpoints.
Second, the decision identifies the speech of CPC person-
nel as violated by the FACT Act. This identification implicitly
acknowledges that CPCs are the instrument of individuals
committed to preventing abortions, even as the FACT Act
requires the centers, not individuals, to post disclosures. The
focus on the compelled speech of individuals, however, has
the important effect of eliminating the operations of the cen-
ters themselves from consideration in the case: the “deeply
held beliefs” of CPC personnel are all that the court is con-
cerned with protecting, while the systematic dissimulations and
157

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
misrepresentations of the CPC industry, which, again, make

no appearance in the court’s opinion, is all that the FACT Act
is concerned with regulating. This links the NIFLA case to
those protecting corporate “speech,” cases in which corpora-
tions are identified as persons or identified with the persons
owning them and in which civil rights intended for individuals
are used to deregulate professional or commercial conduct.
Treating regulations intended to force transparency for CPCs
as violations of the free speech of individuals is how the court
reduces public interest to the state’s “viewpoint” and challenges
democracy on behalf of morality in the name of freedom.
Third, by treating the required notices as state speech oppos-
ing CPC speech and declaring that the FACT Act “regulates
speech as speech,” the court converts regulation in the public
interest into partisan positioning.60 Casting everything as speech
makes everything into a viewpoint and treats all viewpoints as
equivalent. It also makes everything appropriately submitted to
the “competition of the market of ideas” where no competitor
should be required to advertise for another. Making everything
into speech at once obscures and legitimates the deliberate
deceptions of the CPCs; it reformats these deceptions as quo-
tidian tactics in the competitive struggle for market share
within the marketplace of ideas.61
Fourth, “deeply held beliefs,” protected as speech, become
the basis for rejecting regulation and also link NIFLA to Mas-
terpiece Cakeshop. While NIFLA does not engage the free exer-
cise clause, that clause is lurking in the shadows, just as orga-
nized conservative Christian purposes and funding lurk in back
158

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
rooms of the CPCs, but are rarely in their window fronts or

website homepages.
Fifth, “controversy” is mobilized as a designation to limit
state regulation in general and demands for factual accountabil-
ity in particular. It converts state regulation itself into a view-
point in the controversy and any venue shaped by it, hence any
venue where moral traditionalism contests democratic protec-
tions against discrimination or unequal treatment. This permits
the requirement that reproductive service agencies inform
women of adoption options, but not abortion (adoption is for-
mally uncontroversial). “Controversy” foregrounds the claims of
free speech and cancels accountability to science, public health,
and consumer protection.62
Through these five moves, without even mentioning religious
freedom, the Supreme Court licenses religious groups to avoid
accountability to science or regulation as it unbinds their power
to act in civic, commercial, and public life.63 In addition to what
Justice Breyer argued in his dissent, that the majority opinion
threatens the “constitutional validity of much, perhaps most
government regulation,” the opinion also resets the relation-
ship between private moral or religious views and democratic
concerns with protecting against distortions, lies, and decep-
tions in the representation and provision of services to an
unwitting public.64 Like Masterpiece Cakeshop, the decision fos-
ters a rollout of traditional morality and a rollback of govern-
ment regulation that together transform a society organized by
democratic principles and decisions into something else. Like
Masterpiece Cakeshop, the decision both empowers Christian
159

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC
morality in the social sphere and depowers state-secured jus-

tice there. This has become a key legal strategy for realizing
Hayek’s ambition to replace social democracy and social justice
with an order organized by markets and traditional morality.
Finally, the decision comports with and abets the nihilism
of the age in which values become instrumentalized as they lose
their foundations and become political cudgels or commercial
brands. The decision affirms this nihilism in its comportment
with the tacticalization of religion and dethronement of truth
in public life. It makes the U.S. Supreme Court itself and the
Constitution it is bound to interpret into weapons in the cul-
ture wars. It heralds a world of “fake news” all the way down,
one where conservative Christianity, property ownership, and
wealth are empowered as freedoms against social and political
democracy.
160

167.206.19.12 on Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:41:23 UTC

Ch. 4 - Speaking Wedding Cakes and Praying Pregnancy Centers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch. 4 - Speaking Wedding Cakes and Praying Pregnancy Centers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch. 4 - Speaking Wedding Cakes and Praying Pregnancy Centers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Title: Speaking Wedding Cakes and Praying Pregnancy Centers: Religious

Liberty and Free Speech in Neoliberal Jurisprudence

Book Title: In the Ruins of Neoliberalism

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/brow19384.8

This content downloaded from

Religious Liberty and Free Speech

Private rights [must] not [be] allowed to become a basis

IT IS a commonplace that for much of the twentieth century, the

This content downloaded from

employed it to release businesses from all manner of regulation

This content downloaded from

applications. More than deregulation, however, is at stake in the

This content downloaded from

“speech”; the designation of corporations, small businesses, and

This content downloaded from

Speaking Cakes: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado

Notwithstanding the victory cries of the Christian right and the

This content downloaded from

the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) accusing Phil-

This content downloaded from

rhetoric that people can use” in order to “use their religion to

This content downloaded from

of equality and justice in commercial, public, and social life.

Jack Phillips is described by the court not merely as a baker or

This content downloaded from

owned Hobby Lobby, Phillips’s Christianity is formulated as

This content downloaded from

A conundrum then: If it is only Phillips’s artistry that car-

The case also oscillates between Phillips’s artistry as a baker and

This content downloaded from

art studio or gallery, the petitioners and the court draw on

This content downloaded from

speech rights for businesses and to circumvent public accom-

This content downloaded from

Artistic Expression or the Semiotics of Cake?

The petitioners rest Phillips’s right to refuse to make a wedding

This content downloaded from

endorsement and participation in the ceremony and relationship

This content downloaded from

that it is a sacred and exclusively heterosexual event, which is

This content downloaded from

Free Exercise as Free Speech

Free speech is the means by which free exercise is extended into

This content downloaded from

values, but with protection from discrimination or, at the extreme,

This content downloaded from

democratic citizenship and why extending it to corporations is

This content downloaded from

do this all the time at the behest of their bosses or managers.)

This content downloaded from

religion, then, is not really at stake. Rather, it is his combined

This content downloaded from

objections.31 There is no reason to expect this bid to be limited

Praying Pregnancy Centers: National Institute of

We turn now to a second case concerned with compelled speech

This content downloaded from

speakers whose messages are in accord with” the government’s

This content downloaded from

To this end, most CPCs indicate on their websites and other

This content downloaded from