Thread by @AndrewLSeidel

We're going to hear about Supreme Court opinions in a minute or two, and I want to address one issue in #MasterpieceCakeshop that has been badly obscured by the bakery: That case is not and never was about free speech or free expression. Because of what acutally happened

Here is what actually happened. Facts. The gay couple walked in. Introduced themselves and said we want a cake for “our wedding.” The did not discuss what would be on the cake, the decoration, the color, the artistry, or even whether the bakery would participate in the wedding.

We know this happened because THE PARTIES AGREED IT HAPPENED. You don't have to believe me, go read it for yourself. Here's a link to the findings of undisputed fact. Check out paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8.
aclu.org/sites/default/…

Pay special attention to paragraph 8. The bakery ADMITTED that there “was no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like.” aclu.org/sites/default/…

The lower court explained it's decision against the bakery like this: “The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants' same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. [con't]

[con't] Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage.” The free speech claim was "specious." aclu.org/sites/default/…

Categorically refused. Not asked to put any message or symbol signifying or advocating a same sex-marriage. This was not about speech, it was about who the customers were. The bakery was not refusing to speak, it was refusing to serve. Sound familiar?

The bakery’s distinction between baking cakes for gay weddings and baking cakes for straight weddings is, as any you'd expect, fallacious. If we were to do a line up for gay wedding cakes and straight wedding cakes, other than a few gimmes, nobody could tell the difference.

The bakery has been working hard to back away from these facts because they show, despite the arguments on social media, that the bakery did not reject baking a cake for a gay wedding, he rejected baking a cake for a gay couple. He rejected people, not a message.

That is discrimination. It’s illegal in Colorado.

The question is whether or not this Supreme Court will ignore or rewrite these facts, because under them, there is absolutely no argument that this refusal was about speech or expression, it was about bigotry.

Just know that, despite the arguments online and what the SCOTUS might do, this case was never about free speech. If it were, the bakery would have spoken freely with the couple about the message/artistry for their cake, not categorically denied them service bc of who they are.

For more on all the other bad arguments in the Mastpiece, see the article I wrote: All you need to know to win an argument about the gay wedding cake case.
medium.com/@AndrewLSeidel…

I'm still getting questions on this so let's flip the script for a moment and ask, what information led the bakery to refuse service to this couple?

Was it that the message they asked for on the cake was X or Y or Z?
No, obviously not. In fact, this is impossible since the bakery did not know what they wanted the cake to look like.

The new information was that the couple was gay. That's it. That's why the bakery rejected them. That's discrimination.

This case is not about free expression or free speech.