13th Amendment protects baker

I respond to the Los Angeles Times editorial “No ‘wedding cake’ exception” in Monday’s Dispatch. Jack Phillips needs much better lawyers, ones who know that it is not the baker’s First Amendment rights but his 13th Amendment rights that have been violated.

Say a lady walks into a bakery to order cupcakes for her church’s “Guard Against Gays” dinner, with each to say, “Gays Make Jesus Weep,” or some heinous variation thereof. Her religious affiliation protects her from discrimination under the law. Must the baker accept and fulfill the order? This scenario speaks to points either erroneous or missing from the editorial.

First, when a baker contracts to design, produce, and deliver a wedding cake, the baker has agreed to work for the client. This is true for any designer. No building is designed, no wedding gown is sewn, no custom furniture is built, except that an artisan has first agreed to do so of his or her own free will. Which raises these questions: Can artisans ever refuse a contract if they just don’t want the job? Can they refuse if the prospective client is not a member of a protected group, but must agree if the client is protected under discrimination laws?

If an artisan feels forced to comply under threat of law, has his own right to avoid involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment been violated? Of course it has.

Second, an important distinction must be made between waiting on customers in a public business and entering into a contract with a specific client. The first is called a job, and the second is called a commission.

It is Phillips’ freedom as a citizen that has been violated. He should not have to go to court to claim his right not to work against his will.

Martha Sanders Columbus