Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

[Greed and Death]

As I am sure many of you are aware the Supreme Court granted Cert to Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

First I will start with the procedural situation. This is an appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court, the case was relisted 13 times before being granted Cert. This is particularly interesting because in most cases when a case has been relisted this many times it means that cert is being denied and a justice is writing a dissent from denial of cert. There are several reasonably possible meanings to this. 1st it could mean that Justice Kennedy was not on board with hearing the case and the 4th vote which is required to grant cert came when Justice Gorsuch took the Bench. 2nd it could mean that the court realized that this issue needed to be resolved but realized they were split 4-4 so they strategically waited until Justice Scalia's successor took the bench. Lastly, it could mean that a justice (presumably Justice Kennedy) changed his mind because of the dissent.
Also of note is how the case went from the gay couple to the Colorado Commission of Civil Rights. The two Gentlemen seeking to celebrate their marriage sued the cakeshop and then won. The cakeshop appealed to the Colorado Civil Right Commission, and eventually appealing to the Colorado Supreme Court and finally the US Supreme Court. Appealing to the Colorado Civil rights Commission appears to be a unique Colorado procedure as it makes the commission a party to the suit if appealed from. I imagine this is to save civil rights litigants money as appeals can be very expensive. This appears to be a unique Colorado manner of conducting civil rights appeals. My understanding of Colorado Commission of Civil Rights is limited though I believe it involves a public hearing where any member of the community can speak and facts can be relitgated. If there are any Colorado Attorneys who can expound on the procedure of these hearings I would appreciate it.


Second the issues at hand. There are two prospective issue the first (and I think the weakest from the appellant's prospective) is the Free Exercise clause argument, specially that the free exercise clause should give them an exemption from anti discrimination law. The second issue and the strongest is the free speech argument, specifically the cake shop is arguing that they are being compelled to speak by being forced to design a cake they disapprove of.

The compelled speech argument is almost certainly going to dominate oral arguments.

Third Facts of the Case. In 2012 when gay marriage was still not recognized by the State of Colorado a gay couple walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop seeking a cake to celebrate their wedding that was conducted in another state. When the owner of the Cakeshop found out it was for a same sex couple's wedding he explained he can not do that and that he would make cupcakes, birthday cakes, adoption cakes, or any other cake but the wedding cake. He also does not make Halloween cakes, Cakes with alcohol in them, or cakes celebrating divorces. It is also worth pointing out he only does custom cakes at his bakeshop though he does do premade cupcakes and other such items.

A wiki link for the for facts, issues, and procedural standing provided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpie ... Commission
Also here is the Scotus Blog plain English Piece on the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/weddi ... n-english/


Now on to my favorite portion the arguments. I have primarily gotten the following arguments from the Symposium on Scotus blog either directly or indirectly.

So here are two pieces for granting Masterpiece Cakeshop an exemption:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/sympo ... eremonies/
This article presents the strongest argument for the free exercise exemption I just think it falls short.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/sympo ... e-conduct/
This article I believe Articulates compelled speech argument most clearly.

Now here I have two pieces on why there should not be an exemption granted for Masterpiece Cakeshop:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/sympo ... can-value/
This Article focuses companies picking and choosing who to serve and how in places of public accommodation that is something Congress and the states can outlaw (and have outlawed).

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/sympo ... just-cake/
This Article focuses on the commercial aspect and how anything could be considered expressive conduct.

Lastly I have two articles that are not fully for or against but I found informative.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/sympo ... -cakeshop/
This article focuses on disentangling the speech and religion and that the right to an exemption should be found in speech if at all. I happen to agree very strongly with this article.

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/09/why-co ... akery.html
This Article's argument is that expressive conduct has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the case at hand so it should be sent back to the lower courts. I just realized this article has the author as the one above. I disagree with this article because I feel he misplaces the burden of proof it should not be Masterpiece Cakeshop's job to show they had exhausted all possible non expressive outlets but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's burden.

I will place my own opinion on later post.

[The Liberated Territories]

The article where the court ruled that barring "offensive" anti- or pro- gay marriage stances are legal seems to me a bad argument, because "offense" is a very subjective and arbitrary distinction and that what offends one person can not reasonably be used to suggest that the content of the artist is offensive.

Regardless,

It seems to me that a violation of the 1st amendment is clearly in effect, as forcing the baker to serve LGBT couples is essentially the same as endorsing LGBT marriage from a freedom of expression standpoint, something which the baker clearly disagrees with. Even if it is not implicitly, it will still certainly be seen that way. The right to free speech includes freedom from speech you do not agree with, the same way that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion (from an atheist or secular standpoint.)

[Albrenia]

Myself I'd rather not buy stuff from people who hate me for basic traits. Particularly food.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think that, since he only does custom orders, and he made clear that it was the circumstance of the occasion, rather than who they were that made him refuse service, that it should be within his rights to refuse.

[San Lumen]

I think that, since he only does custom orders, and he made clear that it was the circumstance of the occasion, rather than who they were that made him refuse service, that it should be within his rights to refuse.

No it should not. If your open to the public you serve all or none at all. If you want to discriminate open a private club.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think that, since he only does custom orders, and he made clear that it was the circumstance of the occasion, rather than who they were that made him refuse service, that it should be within his rights to refuse.

No it should not. If your open to the public you serve all or none at all. If you want to discriminate open a private club.

Should an artist have to make any artwork someone is willing to pay him for?

[San Lumen]

No it should not. If your open to the public you serve all or none at all. If you want to discriminate open a private club.

Should an artist have to make any artwork someone is willing to pay him for?

An artist is not forced to make anything. They paint or sculpt what they want.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Should an artist have to make any artwork someone is willing to pay him for?

An artist is not forced to make anything. They paint or sculpt what they want.

Most artists have to sell their labor to make a living. There are professional artists, you know. The cakemaker is one of them.

[San Lumen]

An artist is not forced to make anything. They paint or sculpt what they want.

Most artists have to sell their labor to make a living. There are professional artists, you know. The cakemaker is one of them.

No a painter or a sculptor does not serve the public. A baker does. They don't have the right to pick and choose who they serve. So according to your logic Jim Crow laws were ok?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Most artists have to sell their labor to make a living. There are professional artists, you know. The cakemaker is one of them.

No a painter or a sculptor does not serve the public. A baker does. They don't have the right to pick and choose who they serve. So according to your logic Jim Crow laws were ok?

Many painters and scuptors do serve the public. They are called "Graphic designers".

Good God, you are the worst at arguing, anything that doesn't line up with your agenda and you scream "Jim Crow".

[San Lumen]

No a painter or a sculptor does not serve the public. A baker does. They don't have the right to pick and choose who they serve. So according to your logic Jim Crow laws were ok?

Many painters and scuptors do serve the public. They are called "Graphic designers".

Good God, you are the worst at arguing, anything that doesn't line up with your agenda and you scream "Jim Crow".

I do think if a graphic designer was asked to do something involving a swastika or the confederate flag they would have the right to object. And you didn't answer my question.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Many painters and scuptors do serve the public. They are called "Graphic designers".

Good God, you are the worst at arguing, anything that doesn't line up with your agenda and you scream "Jim Crow".

I do think if a graphic designer was asked to do something involving a swastika or the confederate flag they would have the right to object. And you didn't answer my question.

Why?

Because you're question is totally irrelevant.

[Northern Davincia]

Many painters and scuptors do serve the public. They are called "Graphic designers".

Good God, you are the worst at arguing, anything that doesn't line up with your agenda and you scream "Jim Crow".

I do think if a graphic designer was asked to do something involving a swastika or the confederate flag they would have the right to object. And you didn't answer my question.

People only have the right to object when it's something you don't like.
Got it.

[San Lumen]

I do think if a graphic designer was asked to do something involving a swastika or the confederate flag they would have the right to object. And you didn't answer my question.

People only have the right to object when it's something you don't like.
Got it.

No thats not what i said. Swastika are universally regarded as hate symbols.

[Northern Davincia]

People only have the right to object when it's something you don't like.
Got it.

No thats not what i said. Swastika are universally regarded as hate symbols.

Ever been to Asia?

[United Muscovite Nations]

People only have the right to object when it's something you don't like.
Got it.

No thats not what i said. Swastika are universally regarded as hate symbols.

"Hate symbols" are not a legally recognized thing in the United States.

[Greed and Death]

No a painter or a sculptor does not serve the public. A baker does. They don't have the right to pick and choose who they serve. So according to your logic Jim Crow laws were ok?

Many painters and scuptors do serve the public. They are called "Graphic designers".

Good God, you are the worst at arguing, anything that doesn't line up with your agenda and you scream "Jim Crow".

I have never heard of a black person suing to have the KKK bake them a cake.

[San Lumen]

No thats not what i said. Swastika are universally regarded as hate symbols.

Ever been to Asia?

In Asia its not a hate symbol. Its an ancient religious symbol. But in Europe and the Americas since the 1930s it has been considered a hate symbol.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Ever been to Asia?

In Asia its not a hate symbol. Its an ancient religious symbol. But in Europe and the Americas since the 1930s it has been considered a hate symbol.

What if it's an Asian immigrant wanting it on their cake?

And, either way, there's no legal category for "hate symbols". If you can make someone support a political message against their will, then there is no protection against radical ideologies taking advantage of that too.

[Donut section]

And this is why anti discrimination laws suck.

[Greed and Death]

I do think if a graphic designer was asked to do something involving a swastika or the confederate flag they would have the right to object. And you didn't answer my question.

People only have the right to object when it's something you don't like.
Got it.

Anti Discrimination law protects based on status. Race, Gender, Religion, and in the many states like Colorado Sexual Orientation. The message is not a protected status.

[United Muscovite Nations]

People only have the right to object when it's something you don't like.
Got it.

Anti Discrimination law protects based on status. Race, Gender, Religion, and in the many states like Colorado Sexual Orientation. The message is not a protected status.

The designer made it clear he was not discriminating on the basis of Sexual Orientation, but by the nature of the event.

[San Lumen]

And this is why anti discrimination laws suck.

so everyone should have a right to discriminate against whoever they want?

[San Lumen]

Anti Discrimination law protects based on status. Race, Gender, Religion, and in the many states like Colorado Sexual Orientation. The message is not a protected status.

The designer made it clear he was not discriminating on the basis of Sexual Orientation, but by the nature of the event.

He wouldn't serve a couple because they were gay.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The designer made it clear he was not discriminating on the basis of Sexual Orientation, but by the nature of the event.

He wouldn't serve a couple because they were gay.

Did you actually read the OP? He said he would give them cupcakes, and be willing to design a cake for adoptions and other events.