Masterpiece cakeshop v. CCRC

he copied and pasted all of that information except for the last paragraph or two; 3/4 of your argument was someone else's. I don’t get why this is a big deal since I cited my sources and put quotations on those paragraphs. So there is no foul. Also, you wanted to discuss the issues as they lay in the summary judgment decree that you posted, not any arguments made before the SCOTUS or any appellate arguments beyond summary judgment. Well, this debate is formatted according to what was presented and argued at the Supreme court; hence, the title “Masterpiece cakeshop v. CCRC”. Moreover, when I said both parties have to be consistent with undisputed facts of the case, I never said we had to only discuss the issues layed out in summary judgement. Nevertheless, it is fine if Con wants to base his arguments strictly on legal reasoning and law but this is not a requirement in this debate. Is the baker"s refusal considered a violation under the Colorado law? AND 2) Would the baker"s making of the cake be considered constitutionally protected speech? Here, the baker has not simply just refused to bake a cake for the men; According to the undisputed facts of the case, this is not an accurate description of what happenedat all. The baker was not denying them service altogether but ,at the most, denying the order within the service. For example, If a Chinese man goes into a Japanese sushi restaurant and the employee denies service because he is Chinese, then this would be the illegal discrimination that CON is talking about. However, if the Chinese man goes into the Japanese sushi restaurant and the Chinese man asked them to prepare Chinese food and the employee denies their order, then this would be what we are talking about here. Furthermore, the baker NEVER refused to bake a cake for them. The baker told them he would bake other types of cakes celebrating different themes and ideas that he regularly does for everybody else. Thus, making a wedding cake in a way that celebrated the idea of a same sex wedding was NOT on the menu of things they normally do. This is why he let them know in advance so the couple did not have to waste their time just like he presumably would tell other customers if they asked for a Halloween cake regardless of who was asking. he has EXPRESSED a discriminatory reason for his refusal " in violation of the Colorado law. If, for instance, the baker had simply stated that he did not want to make the cake for them because he didn"t like the color of their shoes, he would be in the clear. Jack Phillips, the baker, never provided a reason why he does not make gay wedding cakes during his meeting with the couple. However, he did explain why to their mother afterwards: "The next day, Ms.Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of is religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages. " https://www.aclu.org... As you can read, Phillips rectified his action because Colorado did not allow same sex marriage at the time of the incident. Since this is the case, there was no violation of the law in fulfilling this order, as the public service is to provide a cake for marriage which would be to a man and woman at the time. More importantly, He rectified his action because of his religious beliefs about marriage NOT gay people in general or their homosexual behavior. the ALJ has found that since there was no genuine issue of material fact (meaning that both the baker and the gay men agree on what happened at the bakery),they have found that the facts do not support any violation of the free speech or religious freedom clause of the first amendment. Again, There is no dispute from the facts that the baker was being required to express an idea of “marriage” on a cake regardless as to whether it was gay or straight. Thus, expressing the idea of marriage on a cake is a form of Pure speech through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea and an issue involving his religious beliefs about marriage. The problem here is that the baker would not have known the cake was for a gay marriage, had they not told them. He would"ve therefore made the same cake he chose not to make, and that cake would"ve been used for their wedding. How can the act of making a cake be considered a form of speech only when he/she knows what that cake is being used for? This seems like a large hurdle to get over. Again, The simple act of baking a cake even if its done in a highly stylized or creative and elegant manner is not the argument that is being put forth in this debate or in court nor is it consistent with the facts. Instead, its about highly stylizing an idea or theme on a cake that has nothing to do with the person’s identity. On the other hand, If their desires were truly that generic as Con describes it, then the other items that they acknowledge Jack Phillips offered to sell and bake them, such as cakes for showers or birthdays or brownies, could just as easily have served the purpose of “consumption” for their wedding. Nevertheless, Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins had a unique message they wanted to express about their wedding and about same-sex weddings in general, which is why nothing less than a custom-designed wedding cake would do. In fact, they even brought a pamphlet with them full of custom design ideas that they wanted to put on the cake showing that they wanted him to do more than just bake any cake let alone a generic wedding cake. Colorado's anti-discrimination law is constitutional, and forbids businesses from discriminating against customers/patrons based on their sexuality - very similar to the Civil Rights Act. Since Con supports CCRC and is taking their position in this debate, I am going to assume Con is espousing their main argument. The CCRC and court of appeals suggested that being against gay marriage is equivalent of being biased toward gay people in the same way that being against interracial marriage was equivalent of being biased towards blacks. I can understand why Con and the CCRC are relying heavily on this argument because if it was true, then there would be solid concrete evidence supporting the class discrimination argument. Nonetheless, I am afraid there are some case law refuting this argument. In Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic: "Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. But opposition to voluntary abortion cannot possibly be considered such an irrational surrogate for opposition to (or paternalism towards) women. Whatever one thinks of abortion, it cannot be denied that there are common and respectable reasons for opposing it, other than hatred of, or condescension toward (or indeed any view at all concerning), women as a class-as is evident from the fact that men and women are on both sides of the issue, just as men and women are on both sides of petitioners' unlawful demonstrations." Likewise, opposition to same sex marriage cannot be considered an "irrational surrogate" for opposition towards Homosexuals. In fact, the majority in the Obergerfell decision has even made it very clear that the first amendment gives them the right to promote their views of marriage over the government’s revised view of marriage. Moreover, they said that objections to same sex marriage were valid and never suggested that they were based upon bigotry towards gay people nor did they say it was the same situation as people who opposed interracial marriage: “it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. “ “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here." On the other hand, I actually would agree with Con’s and CCRC’s argument if there was any evidence outside of this argument that suggested the baker was biased toward the people and thus suggest that the baker was simply using the first amendment as a shield. For example, evidence of this would be if the baker told the couple that “ I don’t do wedding cakes for same sex couples” rather than “ I don’t do same sex wedding cakes for same sex weddings”. However, proof of this would be if the baker made same sex wedding cakes for heterosexual couples or denied to make heterosexual wedding cakes for same sex couples. If this was the case, then the free exercise argument would indeed be irrelevant, but suffice to say this is not the case here.