Masterpiece cakeshop v. CCRC

[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.] This is a big deal because you have literally used someone else's argument as your own. It is one thing to quote an argument or cite a portion of an argument to expand on your position, but it is another to placard the entire argument as 3/4 of your thesis. Also, you cited Wikipedia, which isn't a source, it is a collection of sources that requires citation from the original source. [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 laid 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.] Masterpiece Cake shop v. CCRC is a generic administrative docket identifier, not a representation of the current state of the case's appellate status. You also seem to confuse facts with issues. Facts are the events that took place, as you briefed in your proposition; Issues are the legal questions that arise out of those stated facts, based on legal precedent. I realize that you didn't say we only had to discuss the "issues" in summary judgment, but you clearly opined to the DISPUTE that arose from summary judgment as it pertains to the first amendment. This would indicate that you are interested in formulating a unique legal argument based on the ruling and facts within the summary judgment decree you cited and posted in the opening. I get that you don't think that the format of this debate necessarily needs to be a legal one, but you literally formatted the debate as a legal one (i.e.-issue surrounding the first amendment based on the facts=legal argument, NOT solely a philosophical or existential one). [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.] This is a distinction without a difference. What you're saying is that he didn't deny ALL service, but that infers that there was more service for them to get, which is illogical. They went in to get a wedding cake and nothing more. Therefore the service in which they sought was denied. It's an irrelevant point and actually proves my point on Jim Crow laws being closely analogous, whereby since you have other cake options then you don't have a claim; separate but equal. And your analogy doesn't add up. If it were logically constructed correctly, it would read: If a Chinese man goes into a Japanese sushi restaurant and is denied service because he orders Japanese food for his Chinese wedding. It is still discrimination based on his Chinese descent, not on the food he chose to order. This is just semantic word play. Yes, the baker did refuse to bake the cake, because it was a wedding cake that they wanted. They didn't go in there for a birthday cake, cupcake, or anything else. In fact, he made it clear that he would provide those other cakes because he doesn't support gay marriage. And it's not because he doesn't support MARRIAGE; he doesn't support GAY marriage. Here is an actual analogy: Chinese guy walks into a Japanese restaurant and asks for a rainbow roll for his birthday. Japanese guy says he can't give him a rainbow roll for his birthday because he doesn't support Chinese rainbow roll birthday eating, but he does support Japanese rainbow roll birthday eating. Then the Japanese guy says you can eat any other roll - even the rainbow roll - if you're not celebrating anything Chinese. [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.] A legal distinction without a difference. Even when he retroactively states why he didn't provide that wedding cake, he has still been legally foolish enough to provide substantive intent for his denial. Here's an example: Millionaire burns down his house; is then deposed for a civil suit from the insurance agency; he admits that he was trying to get the insurance money; that intent is then retroactively introduced into evidence to support the case going forward. Take away here is, "Don't say why you did it", because it doesn't matter what you told them at the bakery. What matters is the fact that they now have an admission from you stating that you had discriminatory intent at the time of the denial. [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 fact that Colorado had no law legalizing gay marriage is not at issue here, nor is it legally relevant. His knowledge that they were not legal has no bearing on the issues at hand. If he had stated that, "I cannot provide you with a wedding cake because the laws prohibit same sex marriage...even though you cannot even violate the law, since the law is what gives you validation", then it would make sense for (ignorant denial and for non-discriminatory intent purposes) but that's not the case. This not an issue as to whether the couple were potentially planning on "breaking the law" against one that doesn't even exist to validate their union. [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] You've conflated a few things here and I'm not sure you understand what you're saying, but I will try and comprehend. I know there was no genuine issue of material fact, that's why I stated it. But you seem to think pure speech includes protected religious speech through symbolic messages. This may be true under certain circumstances, but here we have a questionable form of speech, in the form of baking a wedding cake (just like a million others with no specific message beyond the decoration), and this does not automatically constitute speech - hence the reason it has risen to SCOTUS. Furthermore, you also have the idea of freedom to practice one's religion, and here it is reliant on the idea that his baking of the wedding cake is considered speech. Without those two disjunctive concepts being capable of linking together, neither uphold. If baking a wedding cake is considered speech, and then the denial of such is a valid exercise of one's freedom of religion, the problem still remains that the government has the ability to regulate both speech and religious practice. And, as I noted, the level of scrutiny here does not rise to strict scrutiny, which is problematic since the state government's interest in preventing discriminatory business practices supersedes an INCIDENTAL prohibition against a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds. I would urge anyone reading this to visit my section where I discuss this. As an aside - the 10th amendment would be good to check out here too. You cite the Bray case, which I don't think is controlling here. As a side - there legally exists a class of people and then there is a protected class of people, which is the point of the Civil Rights Act and the Colorado civil rights law. The portion of the opinion you quoted is actually called "dicta", which means most of it is non-controlling, only analogous. I'm not sure why you did not quote the holding from that case, which is the controlling portion. But, ironically, the opening portion of the dicta you quoted states that "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews." Well, a denial to bake a wedding cake for two gay men getting married is a denial for gays, if you want to actually use dicta as your holding. Bray involved facts that are wholly unrelated to this case. Bray involved protests by people who were not engaged in business and protesting an abortion clinic; not an abortion clinic refusing to give abortions to women. You might read the whole opinion before you cut and paste. [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.] Please read my portion on levels of scrutiny, I have run out of room and do not want to repeat myself.