Skip to main content

Cake Bakers and Sexual Predators

Cake Bakers and Sexual Predators: Which Forms of Speech are Protected Under the First Amendment and How This May Shape Criminal Defense in the Future

Additional resources provided by the author

[1] Roger Parloff, Christian Bakers, Gay Weddings, and a Question for the Supreme, The New Yorker (Mar. 6, 2017), http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/christian-bakers-gay-weddings-and-a-question-for-the-supreme-court. See Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 2015 COA 115, 370 P.3d 272 (Colo. App. 2015).

[2] John H. Tucker, Durham Man Challenges Law on Sex Offenders and Social Networking Sites, Indy Week (May 29, 2013), https://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/durham-man-challenges-law-on-sex-offenders-and-social-networking-sites/Content?oid=3645173.

[3] Adam Liptak, Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage, The New York Times (June 26, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-wedding-cake-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop.html.

[4] Parloff supra, note 1.

[5] Parloff supra, note 1.

[6] Craig, at ? 4, 370 P.3d at 276.

[7] Id. at ?? 6-8.

[8] Id. at ?? 30-32, 370 P.3d at 280-81.

[9] Id. at ? 34, 370 P.3d at 281.

[10] Id. at ? 72-73, P.3d at 288.

[11] Id. at ? 86, 370 P.3d at 290.

[12] Id. at ? 79-80, 370 P.3d at 289 (citing Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. V. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990).

[13] See Lester Gerard Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15–1194, 2017 WL 2621313 *1, *1 (U.S 2017).

[14] Id. at 1 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 14–202.5(a), (e) (2015)).

[15] Id. at 3 (citing Lester Gerard Packingham v. North Carolina, 229 N.C. App. 293, 304 (N.C. CT. App. 2013)).

[16] State v. Packingham, 368 N.C. 380, 384, 389 (2015).

[17] Packingham 2017 WL 2621313 at *1.

[18] Id. at *7.

[19] McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S.Ct. 2518, 2543 (2014) (citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 789 (1989)).

[20] Id. at 2535 (citing Ward, 491 U.S. at 799 (1989)).

[21] Packingham 2017 WL 2621313 at *1.

[22] See supra text accompanying notes 11-12.

[23] See supra text accompanying notes 18-20. See generally McMullen, 134 S.Ct. at 2535-2543; Ward, 491 U.S. at 789-799.

[24] See supra text accompanying notes 11-12.

[25] 2017 WL 2621313 at *7.

[26] Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 2015 COA 115, ?85, 370 P.3d 272, 290 (Colo. App. 2015).

[27] Id. at ?89, 370 P.3d at 291.

[28] See generally 2017 WL 2621313 *1.

[29] See generally Id.

[30] See generally Craig, 2015 COA 115, 370P.3d 272.

[31] If the North Carolina law prohibited all citizens from a specific type of internet use that had public policy reasons, this would likely be acceptable. Alternatively, if the Colorado law only applied to cake bakers, or some other specific class, the prohibition would likely be overly broad and that law would instead be overturned.

[32] This especially applies when it is an action not inherently tied to an outward statement such as baking a cake, but still likely applies in more traditional free speech actions.

Rate this guide


Recommended articles about Criminal defense

Can’t find what you’re looking for?


Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer