Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Would a Jewish baker be required to create a cake for a Nazi event?
Would a black baker be required to create a cake for the Ku Klux Klan?
Is an artist required to paint a portrait of someone he or she does not like?
If they say, "hey, I don't like you" that is fine. However if they say "I won't paint portraits of Jew's." then they are subject to the law.
A "wedding" is NOT any of the protected "classes" mentioned in Colorado "law" either
and Jack Phillips, a creative artist REFUSED to supply a self DESIGNED original ART wedding cake for a WEDDING.
IN ADDITION, he was not in the middle of a contract for a commissioned cake as the "clients" acted in a disruptive and angry manner in HIS cake shop, walked out after cursing him, which shows that they were not there to peacefully negotiate a contract, but indeed cleverly STAGED a protest at a convenient TARGETED Christian baker in a state that had NO gay marriage at the time.
PrawfsBlawg
"Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Almost Always) Trumped Partisanship Since 2005"
Monday, June 04, 2018
SCOTUS Term: The Scope of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Will Be Determined by the Concurrences
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop is based on the religious animus of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and thus appears, at first blush, to be a narrow ruling. However, the evidence Justice Kennedy cites for religious animus could mean that the effects of this opinion extend far beyond the parties at issue. The scope of Matserpiece Cakeshop will depend on whether lower courts take the view of the Kagan/Breyer concurrence or of the Gorsuch/Alito concurrence.
notes, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is fairly incoherent, he successfully achieves a sizeable majority despite profound differences among the Justices. He also makes clear that clergy cannot be required to perform same-sex weddings, but that businesses must generally respect public accommodations laws. Justice Kennedy articulates – without much elaboration – significant principles to guide future cases. The concurrences, however, are better reasoned, more coherent, and more straightforward about grappling with the issues. Justices Gorsuch and Alito, and Justice Thomas, who also wrote separately, appear to believe that even a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. Justices Kagan and Breyer do not appear to share this view. Justice Kennedy has not tipped his hand either way, even with his “disparate consideration” comment. We must await further adjudication to resolve the scope of a state’s power to enact particular anti-discrimination laws that may compel expression.
One other note: Although I believe this case could have been decided using an O’Brien expressive conduct rationale, Justice Kennedy’s balancing style is not well suited to First Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy worries (justifiably) about the stigma to the LGBT community if sellers can refuse service for same-sex weddings. Stigma, however, is an impermissible consideration in First Amendment jurisprudence, just as offensiveness is. The real question is not how to balance the rights of different groups, but where the state’s power ends and our First Amendment rights begin. I currently find the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Breyer more convincing – but I would be interested to see how they might decide a case with actual writing on a cake.
(Cross posted at In a Crowded Theater.)
PrawfsBlawg
"Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Almost Always) Trumped Partisanship Since 2005"
Monday, June 04, 2018
SCOTUS Term: The Scope of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Will Be Determined by the Concurrences
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop is based on the religious animus of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and thus appears, at first blush, to be a narrow ruling. However, the evidence Justice Kennedy cites for religious animus could mean that the effects of this opinion extend far beyond the parties at issue. The scope of Matserpiece Cakeshop will depend on whether lower courts take the view of the Kagan/Breyer concurrence or of the Gorsuch/Alito concurrence.
notes, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is fairly incoherent, he successfully achieves a sizeable majority despite profound differences among the Justices. He also makes clear that clergy cannot be required to perform same-sex weddings, but that businesses must generally respect public accommodations laws. Justice Kennedy articulates – without much elaboration – significant principles to guide future cases. The concurrences, however, are better reasoned, more coherent, and more straightforward about grappling with the issues. Justices Gorsuch and Alito, and Justice Thomas, who also wrote separately, appear to believe that even a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. Justices Kagan and Breyer do not appear to share this view. Justice Kennedy has not tipped his hand either way, even with his “disparate consideration” comment. We must await further adjudication to resolve the scope of a state’s power to enact particular anti-discrimination laws that may compel expression.
One other note: Although I believe this case could have been decided using an O’Brien expressive conduct rationale, Justice Kennedy’s balancing style is not well suited to First Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy worries (justifiably) about the stigma to the LGBT community if sellers can refuse service for same-sex weddings. Stigma, however, is an impermissible consideration in First Amendment jurisprudence, just as offensiveness is. The real question is not how to balance the rights of different groups, but where the state’s power ends and our First Amendment rights begin. I currently find the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Breyer more convincing – but I would be interested to see how they might decide a case with actual writing on a cake.
(Cross posted at In a Crowded Theater.)
It's a bit hard for me to understand how a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. And it's also hard for me to understand how a couple, same sex or not, would want a cake or anything else (pictures, flowers, whatev) done by someone who does not approve of their union. You're going to pay this person good money to do something he doesn't want to do for the most special occasion of your lives? Damn, aren't you taking this gay rights militancy thing a bit too far?
PrawfsBlawg
"Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Almost Always) Trumped Partisanship Since 2005"
Monday, June 04, 2018
SCOTUS Term: The Scope of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Will Be Determined by the Concurrences
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop is based on the religious animus of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and thus appears, at first blush, to be a narrow ruling. However, the evidence Justice Kennedy cites for religious animus could mean that the effects of this opinion extend far beyond the parties at issue. The scope of Matserpiece Cakeshop will depend on whether lower courts take the view of the Kagan/Breyer concurrence or of the Gorsuch/Alito concurrence.
notes, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is fairly incoherent, he successfully achieves a sizeable majority despite profound differences among the Justices. He also makes clear that clergy cannot be required to perform same-sex weddings, but that businesses must generally respect public accommodations laws. Justice Kennedy articulates – without much elaboration – significant principles to guide future cases. The concurrences, however, are better reasoned, more coherent, and more straightforward about grappling with the issues. Justices Gorsuch and Alito, and Justice Thomas, who also wrote separately, appear to believe that even a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. Justices Kagan and Breyer do not appear to share this view. Justice Kennedy has not tipped his hand either way, even with his “disparate consideration” comment. We must await further adjudication to resolve the scope of a state’s power to enact particular anti-discrimination laws that may compel expression.
One other note: Although I believe this case could have been decided using an O’Brien expressive conduct rationale, Justice Kennedy’s balancing style is not well suited to First Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy worries (justifiably) about the stigma to the LGBT community if sellers can refuse service for same-sex weddings. Stigma, however, is an impermissible consideration in First Amendment jurisprudence, just as offensiveness is. The real question is not how to balance the rights of different groups, but where the state’s power ends and our First Amendment rights begin. I currently find the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Breyer more convincing – but I would be interested to see how they might decide a case with actual writing on a cake.
(Cross posted at In a Crowded Theater.)
It's a bit hard for me to understand how a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. And it's also hard for me to understand how a couple, same sex or not, would want a cake or anything else (pictures, flowers, whatev) done by someone who does not approve of their union. You're going to pay this person good money to do something he doesn't want to do for the most special occasion of your lives? Damn, aren't you taking this gay rights militancy thing a bit too far?
Can you think of a better way to celebrate gay love than by grinding it in the face of people who disagree with it?
PrawfsBlawg
"Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Almost Always) Trumped Partisanship Since 2005"
Monday, June 04, 2018
SCOTUS Term: The Scope of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Will Be Determined by the Concurrences
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop is based on the religious animus of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and thus appears, at first blush, to be a narrow ruling. However, the evidence Justice Kennedy cites for religious animus could mean that the effects of this opinion extend far beyond the parties at issue. The scope of Matserpiece Cakeshop will depend on whether lower courts take the view of the Kagan/Breyer concurrence or of the Gorsuch/Alito concurrence.
notes, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is fairly incoherent, he successfully achieves a sizeable majority despite profound differences among the Justices. He also makes clear that clergy cannot be required to perform same-sex weddings, but that businesses must generally respect public accommodations laws. Justice Kennedy articulates – without much elaboration – significant principles to guide future cases. The concurrences, however, are better reasoned, more coherent, and more straightforward about grappling with the issues. Justices Gorsuch and Alito, and Justice Thomas, who also wrote separately, appear to believe that even a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. Justices Kagan and Breyer do not appear to share this view. Justice Kennedy has not tipped his hand either way, even with his “disparate consideration” comment. We must await further adjudication to resolve the scope of a state’s power to enact particular anti-discrimination laws that may compel expression.
One other note: Although I believe this case could have been decided using an O’Brien expressive conduct rationale, Justice Kennedy’s balancing style is not well suited to First Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy worries (justifiably) about the stigma to the LGBT community if sellers can refuse service for same-sex weddings. Stigma, however, is an impermissible consideration in First Amendment jurisprudence, just as offensiveness is. The real question is not how to balance the rights of different groups, but where the state’s power ends and our First Amendment rights begin. I currently find the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Breyer more convincing – but I would be interested to see how they might decide a case with actual writing on a cake.
(Cross posted at In a Crowded Theater.)
It's a bit hard for me to understand how a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. And it's also hard for me to understand how a couple, same sex or not, would want a cake or anything else (pictures, flowers, whatev) done by someone who does not approve of their union. You're going to pay this person good money to do something he doesn't want to do for the most special occasion of your lives? Damn, aren't you taking this gay rights militancy thing a bit too far?
Can you think of a better way to celebrate gay love than by grinding it in the face of people who disagree with it?
Let's just say it ain't helpful if you're trying to promote acceptance and tolerance for gay rights.
PrawfsBlawg
"Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Almost Always) Trumped Partisanship Since 2005"
Monday, June 04, 2018
SCOTUS Term: The Scope of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Will Be Determined by the Concurrences
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop is based on the religious animus of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and thus appears, at first blush, to be a narrow ruling. However, the evidence Justice Kennedy cites for religious animus could mean that the effects of this opinion extend far beyond the parties at issue. The scope of Matserpiece Cakeshop will depend on whether lower courts take the view of the Kagan/Breyer concurrence or of the Gorsuch/Alito concurrence.
notes, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is fairly incoherent, he successfully achieves a sizeable majority despite profound differences among the Justices. He also makes clear that clergy cannot be required to perform same-sex weddings, but that businesses must generally respect public accommodations laws. Justice Kennedy articulates – without much elaboration – significant principles to guide future cases. The concurrences, however, are better reasoned, more coherent, and more straightforward about grappling with the issues. Justices Gorsuch and Alito, and Justice Thomas, who also wrote separately, appear to believe that even a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. Justices Kagan and Breyer do not appear to share this view. Justice Kennedy has not tipped his hand either way, even with his “disparate consideration” comment. We must await further adjudication to resolve the scope of a state’s power to enact particular anti-discrimination laws that may compel expression.
One other note: Although I believe this case could have been decided using an O’Brien expressive conduct rationale, Justice Kennedy’s balancing style is not well suited to First Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy worries (justifiably) about the stigma to the LGBT community if sellers can refuse service for same-sex weddings. Stigma, however, is an impermissible consideration in First Amendment jurisprudence, just as offensiveness is. The real question is not how to balance the rights of different groups, but where the state’s power ends and our First Amendment rights begin. I currently find the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Breyer more convincing – but I would be interested to see how they might decide a case with actual writing on a cake.
(Cross posted at In a Crowded Theater.)
It's a bit hard for me to understand how a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. And it's also hard for me to understand how a couple, same sex or not, would want a cake or anything else (pictures, flowers, whatev) done by someone who does not approve of their union. You're going to pay this person good money to do something he doesn't want to do for the most special occasion of your lives? Damn, aren't you taking this gay rights militancy thing a bit too far?
Can you think of a better way to celebrate gay love than by grinding it in the face of people who disagree with it?
Let's just say it ain't helpful if you're trying to promote acceptance and tolerance for gay rights.
They aren't. They're trying to bludgeon and intimidate their opponents into silence.
PrawfsBlawg
"Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Almost Always) Trumped Partisanship Since 2005"
Monday, June 04, 2018
SCOTUS Term: The Scope of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Will Be Determined by the Concurrences
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop is based on the religious animus of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and thus appears, at first blush, to be a narrow ruling. However, the evidence Justice Kennedy cites for religious animus could mean that the effects of this opinion extend far beyond the parties at issue. The scope of Matserpiece Cakeshop will depend on whether lower courts take the view of the Kagan/Breyer concurrence or of the Gorsuch/Alito concurrence.
notes, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is fairly incoherent, he successfully achieves a sizeable majority despite profound differences among the Justices. He also makes clear that clergy cannot be required to perform same-sex weddings, but that businesses must generally respect public accommodations laws. Justice Kennedy articulates – without much elaboration – significant principles to guide future cases. The concurrences, however, are better reasoned, more coherent, and more straightforward about grappling with the issues. Justices Gorsuch and Alito, and Justice Thomas, who also wrote separately, appear to believe that even a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. Justices Kagan and Breyer do not appear to share this view. Justice Kennedy has not tipped his hand either way, even with his “disparate consideration” comment. We must await further adjudication to resolve the scope of a state’s power to enact particular anti-discrimination laws that may compel expression.
One other note: Although I believe this case could have been decided using an O’Brien expressive conduct rationale, Justice Kennedy’s balancing style is not well suited to First Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy worries (justifiably) about the stigma to the LGBT community if sellers can refuse service for same-sex weddings. Stigma, however, is an impermissible consideration in First Amendment jurisprudence, just as offensiveness is. The real question is not how to balance the rights of different groups, but where the state’s power ends and our First Amendment rights begin. I currently find the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Breyer more convincing – but I would be interested to see how they might decide a case with actual writing on a cake.
(Cross posted at In a Crowded Theater.)
It's a bit hard for me to understand how a blank wedding cake is expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection. And it's also hard for me to understand how a couple, same sex or not, would want a cake or anything else (pictures, flowers, whatev) done by someone who does not approve of their union. You're going to pay this person good money to do something he doesn't want to do for the most special occasion of your lives? Damn, aren't you taking this gay rights militancy thing a bit too far?
Can you think of a better way to celebrate gay love than by grinding it in the face of people who disagree with it?
Let's just say it ain't helpful if you're trying to promote acceptance and tolerance for gay rights.
They aren't. They're trying to bludgeon and intimidate their opponents into silence.
Kinda like Black Lives Matter, only it's Gay Rights Matter. They ain't making any new friends that way.