Masterpiece cakeshop v. CCRC

Yes, I did format the debate to be primarily a legal one, but not strictly according to current state of affairs. For example, SinceThe Supreme Court is a "review court", The Appellant/Petitioner on my side has the burden of proof in a review court.This means that it has already been inscribed into law that the baker discriminated against them despite no evidence. However, I wanted both parties to share the BOP in the debate so I can refute the other side's arguments. 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. Con is operating on what seems like a convoluted or false premise to support his position. His arguments are either implying that Jack sells "Pre-made wedding cake with a custom text" or that his wedding cakes are crafted with the same quality that he makes with his off-the-shelf items or other literary theme cakes. This is totally false. The baker does not create wedding cakes and then stick them onto the shelf PRE-made ready to be customized into something better or different. Instead, all “wedding” cakes are customized or created upon request by Jack who is the only one qualified to make those type of cakes in a special way. This means that when the gay couple said they wanted a wedding cake for “their wedding”, it is no different than saying they wanted a wedding cake customized according to our wedding, which happens to be a same sex wedding. Since Jack is only qualified to make heterosexual wedding cakes given his religious beliefs and same sex marriage was NOT legally recognized, same sex wedding cakes was NOT on the menu. Thus, there is a difference between equal accommodations and SPECIAL accommodations, which is why I brought up the Chinese versus japenese food example to show how it is valid. Again, if the Chinese man asks the Japanese sushi restaurant to prepare Chinese food despite NOT being qualified nor is it a service that has been provided to ANYONE, this is asking for special accommodations or NEW rights even though they are similar products derived from similar ethnicities. 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. Well, this is legally irrelevant because the government cannot force someone to engage in speech against their will regardless of the context unless there is a very good reason. For example, If the baker expresses cakes saying “God bless this union” for heterosexual couples upon their request, he does NOT have to do the same thing for same sex couples upon their request despite what you and the lawyers on your side have claimed. This also means that the motivation behind it, such as religion or even personal animus toward a group, is irrelevant because either way it is still compelling speech . Your argument would only apply if the content of the message or speech solely involved the person’s identity, such as painting a portrait of people but choose to exclude black people because they are black. Or, if it was a pre-made static food item he put on the shelf saying "God bless this union", then he would have to sell it to them because there is no compulsion of speech or expression. 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 Even if Jack Phillips’ custom cakes are not considered artistic expression/pure speech, his designs would still merit First Amendment protection because they are at least considered to be expressive conduct/symbolic speech, which would require intermediate scrutiny. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court established that there are two elements of expressive conduct: (1) a subjective intent to convey a message, (2) coupled with the significant likelihood that this message will be understood by an objective observer. For example, "the United States Supreme Court has held, several times, that burning the flag is a protected form of speech even when the US Code states that it is illegal to burn the flag. Clearly, this is considered speech or else burning the flag would not be so controversial. When one sees the flag burning, it is not just a piece of cloth, it is a representation of the American country and its values. Those who would support a constitutional amendment to protect the flag from being burned believe that the symbol is sancrosanct, and that there is never a justification for it. Those who oppose it believe that, while it is just cloth, the burning of the flag is the strongest possible statement that America's values (like the flag) have gone up in flames, and that the leaders no longer stand for the values made dear by the country and its framers". Likewise, while it is just a cake, the mere attempt of making a stylized wedding cake for a wedding is considered a ritual that happens in marriages all the time symbolizing the uniting forever of individuals in holy matrimony. This is why specifically creating a "wedding" cake would obviously be a very artistic action that involves a lot of feeling from the artist and eating the wedding cake would merely be a secondary function as a result. The Hurley case is another great example of why it does not have to be an expression in the form of words or spoken language. “The Court ruled that private organizations, even if they were planning on and had permits for a public demonstration, were permitted to exclude groups if those groups presented a message contrary to the one the organizing group wanted to convey. Addressing the specific issues of the case, the Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be presented by their demonstration, even if the intent of the state was to prevent discrimination”. https://en.wikipedia.org... Likewise, the baker has a right of free speech to exclude a particular group who impart a message the baker does not want to be presented within his wedding cakes even within public accommodations. 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. Even if there was any evidence showing that he discriminated against them based upon personal animus toward the person, it would not matter. Discrimination against Sexual orientation only requires rational basis test to satisfy since they are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. On the other hand, infringing on free speech rights in regards to symbolic speech warrants heightened scructiny, which would trump the rights of the gay couple as a result. Lastly, this infringement of speech rights cannot be considered incidental because the baker was not being required by the state to simply bake a cake or bake a customized heterosexual wedding cake like he does for EVERYBODY. He was required to specifically customize it to look like a same sex wedding cake. This leads to address something else Con said... 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. This is a blanket contradiction with the Obergerfell decision, which is totally related and has controlling precedent over this case. As the supreme court suggested, there are valid reasons for opposing same sex marriage that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. However, even though his argument is entirely dependent on this premise being true, Con neglected to address this refutation, which is a fatal mistake on his part. He should have spent majority of his time addressing this because there is no other basis to conclude class discrimination outside of this argument. Summary and Conclusions To summarize my argument, even if expressing a customized wedding cake is not pure speech warranting strict scrutiny, it definitely warrants heightened scruntiny because its clearly symbolic speech similar to burning the flag. I doubt even Con would disagree or object to. Now, let me summarize my refutation of Con’s argument attempting to justify this infringement. Con’s central argument for why we should believe class discrimination took place in the cakeshop is that all opposition toward same sex marriage is an “irrational surrogate” for being bias toward all same sex couples. The controlling opinion of the Obergerfell decision completely undermines this argument so that it cannot be used to imply such a thing. Since I can’t respond to his attempt to address this flaw within his argument, This concedes the debate. However, even if we assume this argument was valid, discrimination against sexual orientation only warrants rational basis test. This means the rational basis test is automatically satisfied by the fact that treating them the same infringes on free speech rights of the baker. Finally, Con cannot claim that this was “incidental” infringement on his rights because we are not talking about simply baking a cake for everyone, which would be a government interest. Instead, its about “decorating” a wedding cake to potentially look like a same sex wedding. Thus, there was NO state interests to force that baker to make same sex wedding cakes, especially when same sex marriage was NOT even legal in Colorado!!!!!!!!