Masterpiece cake shop in colorado refused to make a wedding cake for samesex couples on religious grounds. The court will hear the case tomorrow. The Cato Institute hosted this debate. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Cato Institute. I am the Vice President for legal affairs, founding director of the center for constitutional studies and your host for this afternoons debate. I want to welcome those that are joining us on cspan and through the lifestream. We are here to consider whether religious liberty can coexist with antidiscrimination law. We will hear oral arguments tomorrow when it hears the case of the Masterpiece Cake shop the colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case arose when Charlie Cragg couple walked into the cake shop in colorado owned and operated by Jack Phillips a devout christian as with all of his customers and phillips had no problem selling anything off the shelf but he declined to make a custommade cake to celebrate the couples wedding citing his religious convictions and directed them to nearby bakeries that would design a cake as he had with others. Unsatisfied, they filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission alleging that phillips had violated the antidiscrimination act finding in their favor the commission ordered phillips among other things to conduct comprehensive staff training including for his family members who worked at the bakery. After supporters of the bakery lost his employees an and appead the decision but like the courts around the country they decided similar cases with respect to florists, bakers, photographers and others, the court of appeals upheld the commission and the Colorado Supreme Court declined review. To review. The Supreme Court may now go some lanes or uphold the decision below. We have two men whove written often about it. Let me introduce them to you. Shapiro will speak first on behalf of the commissioner senior fellow at the studies here at cato and the editorinchief for the Supreme Court review. Before joining, he was a special assistant advisor to the Multinational Force in iraq on the rule of law issues and the coordinator of the wellregarded amicus program. Hes the author of religious liberties for corporations, hobby lobby, the Affordable Care acagainst the constitution and hes contributed to a wide variety of academic popular and professional publications including the wall street journal, harvard journal of law public policy, la times, New York Times online and more. He appears regularly on radio and tv. In 2015, the National Law Journal made one of its 40 rising stars. He graduated princeton, London School of economics, Chicago Law School and clerked for the u. S. Court of appeals for the fifth circuit. For the respondents, Charlie Cragg will be the naacp legal fund defense counsel for the appellate and Supreme Court advocacy. In his role he works with attorneys on Strategic Development and preparations of appellate and Supreme Court briefs. Prior to joining, he worked as an associate at the firm where he focused on the representation of complex commercial litigati litigation. Hes published on a range of international and domestic policy issues in the Washington Post, politico and elsewhere in the landmark windsor case. As it is a current fellow at Georgetown University law center and cochair of the constitution project young professional committee. In september of 2015, he was named one of the top foreignpolicy leaders under 35 by Young Professionals in foreign policy. A graduate of stanford, Harvards Kennedy school and clerked for gregory on the u. S. Court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit and judge scott on the court of appeals for the armed forces. Our speakers will each have 15 minutes to present their opening arguments in five minutes to respond after which there will be a couple of questions myself. Well take questions from the audience and concluded 5 30. Lets begin. [applause] for those of you watching at home i should add that there is a twitter cache cache tag. If you followed us all day you could see a little battle and thats all fine but it just shows there are many ways to slice the case and i hope that you wont think what i present this half baked as long as i dont end up with yoko myspace we are in all good. The case has been misunderstood by a lot of people. It is not a case that ultimately the court is being asked to decide between competing rights or people or whose interests are more important in American Society. Instead, it is one way or we can see the good that has come from the case that cato filed for the challenges the traditional marriage laws in many states. It was about public action and what license they could make those decisions. They also said the majority opinion was based on decent and honorable or philosophical premises and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged and that is what the case is about respecting peoples differences and living together in a pluralistic society. My friend wants to make the case of bigotry and civi civil rightd the steps to equal before a persecuted minority. If we take this seriously whether they have to tolerate distasteful view views but it ia case about civil rights for the persecuted minorities a very few Small Businesses that cant bring themselves to support samesex weddings. More fundamentally it is about the freedom of speech and conscience and recognizing that the force of government shouldnt be brought to bear on standing out dissenting views. Again from the majority opinion. It must be emphasized those that adhere to the religious doctrines may continue to advocate with conviction that by design precepts should be condoned. The First Amendment ensures religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to protect the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives into their own aspiration to continue the Family Structure that long revered. The same is true of those that oppose samesex marriage for other reasons. There was lots of play in the joints and understand that unlike certain contacts involving race for example, there need not be animus driving those who disagree with the idea of samesex marriage, and so every last bit of dissent need not be stamped out. This is actually a speech case, not for the most part a religious case and that is because unlike hobby lobby there is no religious freedom act that is the case of Employment Division that said if there is a generally applicable law that burdens religion, you must seek exemption from the legislature and that is where we have all of this in the federal and state. Colorado doesnt have this comes out generally that should be the end of the game. The reason they are still part of the case, and i will leave with this even though the speech theories are stronger because most people think it is a religious freedom case although theres not five votes on the speech argument i cant see how there would be for the religious one. But regardless, the reason that the claim remains is because the colorado antidiscrimination act has not been used in a natural and generally applicable way. Several times, the religious patrons went to other secular bakerbakers in the request of cn religious cakes. Some of them have messages that were not friendly and they were refused in the colorado Civil Rights Commission and they did decline to pursue those actions saying that it wasnt a religious nature of the customers being discriminated against bu wrapper, it was the message. At the same thing, like with all of these cases we have seen, none of these people turn back people of the front door and refused to serve them. Its only when they are asked to convey a message relating to celebration of the union if it starts becoming a federal issue. Moreover, the case goes beyond what was happening in the Employment Division versus smith. It was a prohibition of the type of drug bust here it is someone being forced to do something against their religion which is a step beyond being stopped from doing something that your religion requires. The free exercise clause that they consider to be both religious and against their religion, so that his wife the liberty argument is still there and im convinced hes briefed by the university of virginia was one of the nations foremost religious liberty scholars. Justice referred to jackson and the nomination. They say the pledge of allegiance during wartime and we had to be patriotic and make sure we were not struck down. It was that which shall be orthodox in politics and religion or other matters of opinion to confess by word or act. The right to speak our complementary components of the individual freedom of mind. This involves the New Hampshire slogan. Free or die and the court struck that down for the reason why wherever you live in the district if you dont like the default slogan on that license plate in the district it is no taxation without representation you can ask for and have to be given some alternative because even though nobody would think New Hampshire, dc or whoever is conveying still you cannot be forced to convey that message. Indeed, never had the court compelled expression in the circumstances like this one even if there is a dignitary harm to. Someone takes the decision to exercise their First Amendment rights and ultimately involves the regulation and compulsion of speech must conduct. This is not a rule about who has to sell to whom or when or how your whom or when. The key is he doesnt want to convey a particular message out that he doesnt want to do business with people either individually or as a couple. He invited the couple here to buy cupcakes or other baked goods. Now you might say what is a wedding cake its just a symbol of the two people who are getting married. Its not a judgment on the baker impact if its very plain and might not be saying much at all. The conversation here was cut off before there was even talk about what kind of design the couple wanted or whether they wanted any words on it or where theyre going to be rainbows. Ultimately they did get one made somewhere else. But all he said as was i will t make a custom cake for this wedding. Thats okay. That is enough to invoke the protections of the amendment because to qualify the artistic expression need not come tame a quote in a particular message that is according to the case. It too compelling speech and weve seen that and during the vietnam war. Then its too restricted. Then theres the different message with different contexts with a latin cross made by a sculptor or it could be used for the nations event. You could have a rainbow design for a Kids Birthday Party or a pride festival. They could make elephants for kids or a trump rally. Even the manufacturer which might not be expressed in the context thats why people pay these psalms and commission them as a central part of the celebration. Once you accept it can be protected and the Courts Police line all the time, then there are certain traditional arts and functions. What is cake making but using buttercream and whatnot as opposed to plaster. Indeed there are thousands that have been copyrighted, and each one philips produces is unique. There is a briefing that was filed maliciously by a law firm that had 27 pictures of kates and talked about the Artistic Design and merits of whats going in their. The nonexclusive activities like renting out and events they might have raised the claims but surely they are not expressed in the activities and the court has protected a broad swath of things you wouldnt think of for things like flagburning and animal crush videos if you dont know what that is dont look it up. They are taking the Supreme Courts lead in recognizing the diverse tattooing custom painted clothing and stainedglass windows. The couple cases where the Supreme Court has taken up public accommodation laws in the context of the expression of people who are challenging the law, boy scouts of america couldnt be compelled to have scout leaders because of the Expressive Association or if you cant force the parade to include a speaker than you can force a speaker to join the parade either. At the end of the day the government doesnt need to do this. We dont live in a world of jim crow, thank god where we have the state supported segregation as well as the cultural and social racism. Quite the reverse we have a number of businesses without market power taking an unpopular position paying the price for it. This isnt controlled by the case im sure they will talk about in a restaurant that didnt want to serve black people told them he would serve them but they have to be outside. He offered to sell other convictions but refused to make them for halloween or bachelors parties were divorced parties and also for that matter refused to make a cake for a straight couple if someone wanted to celebrate the varieties of marriage he wouldnt want to do that. The opposition is a part of that and this is the most common hypothetical that is tossed at those advocating the position where i stand now. But it would be hard pressed to find an example someone opposes the marriage that isnt otherwise racist and would be okay with serving. The support is different as it is echoed in the opinion. Trampling First Amendment rights is a serious business. Theres more than 100 wedding photographers and theres more than 67 bakeries in denver that specifically advertised. They would be willing to lose business over these beliefs and even especially street customers by advertising the ruling for colorado would lead to a different kind of pervade catholic artists being forced to make what celebrate party favors for divorce and if they did for weddings, muslim graphic designers celebrating the one true god and also for jews should they be forced to bake cakes for the Westboro Baptist church. Ideology is in dc, seattle, other places. Ive always been curious about working for the organization and what happens when we deny employment to a socialist because he or she is a socialist and i will take that up with the Hr Department later. It comes up in a lot of context. Should they be forced to bake a cake for the nation or show them environmentalism is an ideology. Should they be forced to make a call for blogging communities or a democratic painter who wants to paint a mural for the obama library. I dont know if mr. Phillips is a football fan should they make cakes celebrating the kansas citkansascity chiefs maybe not r when the whole division is terrible, but in general. My wife is from kansas city and is concerned about this hypothetical. Finally, should fashion designers be forced to create addresses i think we can celebrate a whole range of pre come here if we just let bygones be bygones. Justice kennedy could have for so some of this protecting not just the right to advocate but then regardless people on either side of the debate shouldnt be forced to convey messages they dont like that h but he didnt. So what is left to the angels of the pluralistic nature and lifestyles we may not like. Its good to be back and important to have civil discussions like this. This isnt just a case about the denial of a particular cake or custom cake its about any wedding cake at all. There was no discussion eluded to the color scheme or what the written message on the top of the cake might be or other artistic motifs the couple might request. All mr. Phillips needed to know if they wanted a wedding cake and for those of you following at home this is page 168 and 169. According to his own account explaining all he needed to know if he didnt create wedding cakes for samesex weddings. Im not so sure we can say we can sell other items that we believe that for another day. Second production i would like to make is legally speaking about the free speech. You might have forgotten this is also a case of the free exercise about religion and most people understand this to be a case about religion that is how it started out even though the legal theory has been retooled to focus on artistry through the perspective that we have now been sort of compelled to think about in his speech. But lets be honest. For most this is about religion and about religious exemption. At best, this is a hyper claim and by mr. Phillips own account, those are the two sides of the same claim. Hes religious, significant, because of the religious significance of marriage, he would require to express through his art and idea that conflicts with his beliefs and is very importanit is veryimportant bece significance for a customer and shop owner alike. It is in the belief system and the judgment about the moral disapproval. This isnt just some abstract quarrel. I only sell impressionism, lets call the whole thing off. So, if we acknowledge that there is a strong religious components like backup focomponentlets bat and talk about that. We have three customers that walk into a Small Business selling specialty suits. The owner is said to be an artist for his unique skills. He believes the religious convictions in all aspects of his work. The owner turns the customers away or denies them access to the full range of products because his religious belief forbids it and they see the First Amendment should immunize his refusal to provide service. I could be describing what happened in 2012 to mr. Cragg, but im actually describing is what happened in 1964. The africanamerican customers at a restaurant in south carolina. That led to does the seminal decision that was alluded to earlier. It is deja vu all over again. As distinguished through regulation where religious acts require accommodation. Sole 11 days after hearing oral arguments the Supreme Court said this is not even borderline. With the Civil Rights Act was invalid contrary to the will of god. Sova shows the zero come it shows the outcome with the crossroads of religious liberty that is historically complex with the defenders a e opponents of certain movements to of both theological principles but during the Civilrights Movement numerous papers that the forefront with the march toward equality with the civilrights act to lock arms at the head of the selma procession with a march on washington and called to the ministry at the age of 19 named after Martin Luther and i can go on and on. But on the other hand, the facts are the theological argument has been blatant forms of discrimination while that may seem outlandish those arguments for once are quite common it used to use those racial marriage just as one as half a dozen examples almighty god to place them on separate continents that shows he did not intend for those races to mix. Saw just one year after brown verses board of education and then allow each race were now advise gods plan was an error in must me reversed and to justify that segregated railroaded pa. The Supreme Court held that segregation to suffer those that is established by the creator himself even the Civil Rights Act itself faced religion based resistance with virginia senator byrd including the interbreeding of cattle but thankfully since the mill of the 20th century that was russian now with the of rationale. So when we view those cases and the Historical Context that constitutes a major repudiation that repeatedly had drawn on the of theology and interracial marriage and the Supreme Court unanimously rejects that with public accommodation. Fifteen years after that to maintain a the policy from engaging in interracial dating so it could not overcome that policy with discrimination even that lone dissenter chief Justice Rehnquist find there is the Strong National policy said the Supreme Court objected fur deferential treatment so no matter how oh sincerely felt for wellintentioned he cannot justify that differential treatment of lgbt individual soul talk about speech because on either side said that the importance that they now focus on this so under that theory with just would have relabeled the claims should have argued their religious beliefs that it is not religious to express through his art that it conflicts with his religious beliefs he always found himself to be more than he wanted. But it would not have reached that conclusion if he just would have tacked on another area of compelled speech nothing else shows a discrimination by the same belief as long as they say free speech rather than and free exercise that finally i want to lay out the ways aside from being wrong of the law with the position that the exception would follow the rule and that was problematic for several reasons but that proposes though limited principal fur artistic or custom products so first just applied it is important that an artist that is commonly understood by those organizations moreover his restaurant to the state offers custom wedding catering and you can go online right now to see the customizable packages where rehearsal dinner is a word Church Events so that would be exempt sauger that limited principal the implications would be drastic certainly not limited to a wedding cake but as we suggest videographers web site designers talking about 6,000 bakeries the size of the wedding industry 315,000 businesses out large that all envision themselves under the new theory of the day with the Stage Lighting and defense planners so to talk about those legal issues can apply to anyone with that intellectual or artistic expression that the law currently envisions to truly escher in the First Amendment challenges but the net result is to embroil the judiciary at the intersection of expression so ill give you a few examples is a custommade barbeque wedding for a wedding any less artistic and no wedding cake . So to the type of food that is served so referring to a cooked meats at the feast so is the Wedding Dress different to be tailormade . Does this apply to other evens so the net effect is to seriously hobble antidiscrimination efforts across the board with this is ultimately contained to say yellowbird that the government doesnt need to do this because there are alternatives. That it leads the entire purpose there already was the alternative to the right restaurant was the of black western down the hall. At a city park built around fact. This isnt about the alternative market for people discriminated against but to navigate the economy and American Society as a fall in a quarrel and dignified member only in the last 60 years that africanamericans have been able to enjoy the full dignity and the participation as a result of public accommodation law also serve here we are one block from k street just say go down to the other bakery that just is not possible with a live in that part of the country that could not be another venue such a practical result is that you cannot get a cake so you are shutout said to be required for the sole purpose so that is is the effect of the argument am not sure i heard a firm answer but what is ziggy park rightly decided they previous to serve the wedding because of religion . They give. [applause]. It was rightly decided but it is irrelevant that is illegal sit discussed in the of his brief most banal of of the religious liberty doctrine is also irrelevant to the current question because it is not a straight for the attack that i have a religious objection that is why i want that exemption in judicially. Seven o as i describe that religious exercise based on the colorado civilrights commission applied overly broad and overly inclusive antidiscrimination night even with no viable zero free exercise claim. Order fatah Phillip Jackson the radical a pianist who has other objections to samesex marriage that doesnt matter other than it provides we dont know exactly which doctrine to apply so again with is in about we litigating the 60 zeroth free exercise but the substitute for blacks for gays that is not what is going on but there is a difference with a certain kinds of people i dont even know what you want to have someone who cannot in good faith literally former union they should not be refrained from bending bill will and this goes beyond gay weddings from government compulsion to squeeze out of Civil Society to foment the social plan the social class or even the Supreme Court told the government to compromise but certain states want to continue to assert their belief government cannot force us to do things that violate our beliefs so there is a conflict with the freedom of speech with a gay rights and marriage to quality is more important but that is a false choice. There is a clash of individual rights other when the government recognizes to protect everybodys rights so the clerk acts of the states behalf so marriage licenses but they are not government agents should maintain the freedom of conscience this is the case about compelled speech freedom to defer is just a mere shadow for us to think that touches the heart equally fundamental to have no authority to authority to engage in the expressive backs for the benign purpose weld un. [applause] i will offer to a closing thoughts you said it that the government is forcing mr. Phillips to do something and i dont think that is right nobody is threatening to send him to the siberian gulag. But literally with the injunction. Mandates it dsl wedding cakes you have to sell them on a nondiscriminatory basis and the injunctions as read to familiarize yourself with colorado law and if you still refuse and turn away cost customers you need to give an explanation on a quarterly basis it is overheated to suggest to force mr. Phillips to force him to engage but to get that hypothetical later on im not sure i will win everybody in the audience but with the broader point i felt that have convinced you that there is something we have to reckon with the facts are too similar to ignore and i dont say that i say that to be promising because at the end of the day and with religion in antidiscrimination that are received and applied. This 68 ruling did not and do some major backlash and it did not impede those institutions with those activities or the commercial success or a barbeque specialist or other cavers but people for the most part embraced the courts unanimous ruling and itself can have a vibrant chain of stores and the current owner speaks openly about rising above his fathers legacy so bad is instructive for us today in context of lgbtq protection in the commercial sector are entirely capable while also ensuring their religious views of individuals that public accommodation law in particular with that extraordinary advancements in and day are not inevitable so they should preserve that critical protection that guards individual religious liberty. Thank you. [applause]. And from the recent commentary last week the Washington Post column last week wrote that Jack Phillips was neither asked nor required to attend the lead alone participate so oh that creation of the cake before the ceremony would not have constituted participation in any meaningful sense of course, participation is a ground that religious liberty suggest they should be excused but on the creative issue ashcake could be a medium for creativity so it could be full of forethought however it is food and it ends when he sends the way to those who can seven so phillips shot this this case for those who sought punishment because easily they could have gone elsewhere for the cake rather than bring the force of the state down and so how do you respond . Sure. On that expressive cake bit it is news to my wife is primarily about food or be overpaid because we could about that equivalent of calories for a lot less although i did enjoy in the tasting before our wedding. Ed k key is a unique product is a sculpture if you will, it is no different that he works of the icing and buttermilk or butter cream man eating or cream or paint so i take is not there because you are expected to provide desert where people will still be hungry after you fed them at your wedding but it is there as a very important symbolic totems that plays a role in the ceremony where they traditionally slice that together as the first meal together. Is a lot more fraught bin just providing a cake for dinner. But as for participation i will not get into a theological debates with anyone about what constitutes about that chavis of san but it is part of the reason why i think with the free exercise claim is stronger under the law not just first principle so that is why to be the creation of the cake you are mixing your Creative Energies because that ingredient is called love into that masterpiece. So then the national and review column david french wrote that philips is not discriminating on Sexual Orientation if the of black baker refused his a request on the confederate clapped flag cake he is refusing to abeyance a message eventually decided of a rigo kate that sent a specific message sexual revolutionaries are asking the court to overturn generations to allow the state to compel american citizens to what they found reprehensible so the cost is not just your artistic point but that commandeering to levants their ideological interest. If you are making cakes cakes, but to have your cake sydney time. Youre welcome in our household. Im actually better at the barbecue. [laughter] and noel cocktails but that ignores the basic facts of the case they did not even get into the conversation of the rainbow cake after words because this is he said he was not prepared they walked out. That is the john keating of the conversation. So what that tells you is you didnt need to know any more about them with two gay men celebrating a wedding does that raise the inference because of their Sexual Orientation . I think it does and if there are other situations somebody is discriminating because of their gender then we should take a look at. But it seems he was not discriminating on the basis of Sexual Orientation as far he was prepared to assert them with the goods off the shelf but it was the extra step. Also perfectly prepared to offer other products to take it to go i think that is a distinction without a difference. What about the message component and they said we might inside to look like a rainbow of outside to look like congratulation . So the rule of thumb is if you would sell that to a couple you have to sell a. But if he would not sell the rainbow cake to a straight couple . If he said i am not in the market to make rigo cakes period. Rainbow cupcakes period. So now we are splitting hairs. But the point is you do except a line can be drawn for expressive activities. Yes. To file with me in the new mexico photography case now going to the texas Supreme Court to still agree but that arties of all baking is not sufficient. I dont agree entirely but with regard he says he himself is not the cake he is not at the wedding ceremony, not at the video is not so there is a distinction if we start to draw lines i may have different ideas with different types of expression and hypothetical is but the bottom line all the real life is this cost of the libertarian First Principles to have a very wide range of challenges with conduct and businesses to you really want courts to determine what is religious or not . You have to live mitt. But that is what they are paid for i have seen other petitions. I disagree. The implications are already on the wall it the Supreme Court reverses colorado with copycat lawsuits. And. Would you really make a Wedding Singer to express themselves that they disagree with . Wedding express said a Wedding Singer. The videographer . How the police this . That the singer could bianchi off key were the cake that falls. And always looks that specific performance. Keep the law as it currently stands you dont have to police. But then he forced the Wedding Singer but he is not professional. But the court has to make a judge on the quality of the performance that is a separate suit i could see that coming down the road. So lets turn it over to you in the audience. Wait for the microphone to give us your name and affiliation as one person is speaking please raise your hand to get as many questions as possible. Lenovo if you are aware but going to the of Supreme Court of the bakery based in Northern Ireland now gay marriage is still an issue the what the bakery was refusing to do was to say support gay marriage but they would have refused to make that cake for a heterosexual couple but theyre not prepared to convey that message on the antidiscrimination and legislation it discriminates but they save no that they were forced to support one side. Because that is squarely the issue that we have raised. The answer webby it is not this case. And then to support a gay marriage . With the noted is a gay couple getting married. Ic. He has to travel to belfast to make the ruling. Does it raise different issues . Yes. Am not prepared to take the government has a compelling interest but i still of think they can make a choice to enter certain markets or sell them to no one but that is not what happened all they needed to know is that this case as the broader president. That is truly a political speech and your say the baker cannot refuse to convey a message they dont agree with with any other protective class. I would not sell that to a straight couple or the gate couple. Gay couple but you would not sell any cakes. So with that broader effect is really any type of a cake that he would refuse he just will not sell to the gay people at all. Sova to respond to the point of alternatives i am thinking of another hypothetical everybody gets their holiday pictures in there is though one family that has samesex parents what about the implications of that . Traditional public accommodation clauses are meant to precisely deal with natural monopoly situations like that that there is no alternative so the rule i propose is not the absolute just like the traditional accommodation laws like the jim crow era you had no place to go and then go miles and miles beyond so really there is a situation that did save reasonable alternative then i doubt the issue would rise how many places but yet have to me and i could see an exemption to you the requirement could be massaged with that is a hard case but the general rule i am proposing you should not be forced to convey a message to do not disagree with. But if it was a public utility or a monopoly the also for the competitive market they did not impose any duty to serve. Consider of tolerance and affirmation of the same thing . We all have to tolerate everybody but until then we have to give up everything privilege is a choice that is different from black people when they came into being if you get married your making a vow that is a choice that is different from one person or another so wide a Cato Institute does not take up this case on the rationale of the impairment of contract . The government is deciding a can evil itself in contract if they are forced to make a contract or fabricate a contract that is not government in our society. You work with a lot you have by could argue for different economic liberties it would be a very different case with the non expressive business like that cater or the limo driver im not sure he was building a sculpture for you but the case presents squarely the free speech and somewhat freedom of religion aspect but i of this simple constitutional lawyer were not discussing those First Principles of what it should be. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] bad is the fundamental freedom of association case. There were a lot of challenges with the Civil Rights Act passing on the commerce grounds so if they are those of there that want to relive the gate or the freedom to marry is a right you talk about throwing up into the air constitutional law which is even more drastic from what is going on in this case. We dont want to go there. It is 25 years. But ziggy park has nothing to do with this. I have a question. What if to homosexuals went into the bakery we will have a huge orgy with 20 men we would like to have the cake to celebrate . Would leave the baker be entitled to refuse and the situation . Not withstanding that hypothetical bakes then certain assumptions of lgbtq americans that if they have an orgy. [laughter] i suppose it could raise that inference they could be turned away because they were gay but that if he just said i dont make orgy cake. Which he would say in this cake and that probably would be flying. Colorado antidiscrimination law focuses on Sexual Orientation only. And also includes race and gender. It doesnt focus on behavior to a Sexual Orientation. But i think that means you have a certain orientation. Somebody just treated them every cater debate to include the orgy question . [laughter] anybody have perelman in the vending machine . Carol when . [laughter] with the couple one of them had come into the shop and said a like identical take to the display case and told them no more how it would be used what do you think about that . If it is one from the catalog to say i want one of those of they told him it was for a samesex ceremonies and regardless if that is legal or not which i dont think it is the question involving the government should be involved in marriage in the first place but can you make this cake for my samesex weddings and a thing he is entitled to say no. Then why would he oppose that . I dont know why unless he had knowledge but if he had no knowledge then we go back to the original comment. It seems the issue are you forced to earn money between people. The Supreme Court held there is no first the mentor rights of there is a dollar sign attached to what you do whether dancing or commercial speech i do think that plays a role. We do have some agreement actually now would is play the game of a hypothetical set this point but if it is not decorated but it is a black baker . And dave knows the person requesting it is gay . Sold to be a member with a handful. Using the white supremacist groups they dont with the kkk. The area nation is not a protected class in the statute. I think there are three jurisdictions in the country we have to look at the aryan nation is a Political Party but my general answer is in colorado under federal law it is not a protected status not by statute. I have a of a . Question about it to a man walked into the shop but was not clear if it was for a wedding if the baker last is the couple required to disclose are they required . I dont think so. This is why i won the closest to even inquire about this in the first place of the baker doesnt want to convey a message he should be able to do that. Period there could be a situation where he finds out halfway through making the cake and stops production and then it is a breach of contract then he has to make good and have somebody else, it is a weird situation but it is a hard case scientifically the way most custom breve site i have heard you find a lot about the couple what theyre interested in a reuter personalization, edwards, or no words so it just isnt the runofthemill case for this type of baker to encounter the situation. Why would they need to know . The model is interested to rocket jewish shop to buy the cake in the walkout there isnt a long interrogation of right race or you . But there is a design element. The old, my dealing with these cases was called the invitation to treat. That means if you walk in as the business poses itself as open to the public then they are held to that representation you can enter into his emporium if you start negotiating about the terms of service if you reach the agreement then you do so and if you can then the customer leaves. That is called the invitation to treat. So you havent addressed the issues and custom apps that are in travolta these arguments in particular i would say a bad analogy as a muslim is somebody said i want you to design a cake for the hindu holiday i wouldnt discuss the details i would say i am not the one to do that. I cannot do that because it is against my religion. I am a wordsmith they say righted article for my dog i dont need to discuss that further to say no. Starting with the baker i think what you described right now would not be legal if you turn some away because of their religion and that violates public accommodation law because of religion and for good reason i think we dont want to have those claims i dont believe in interfaith marriages or i dont believe in that version of christianity. But you talk about a lot of flaws in saying a catholic cannot refuse to serve a baptist but not the decade, because that is a perversion of the theology or second marriages not because there is a religious objection but the message the catholic in my view under this doctrine could not refuse to serve the interfaith couples or a baptist but the wedding cake conveys a message to celebrate them marriage and could refuse. This was left to the parties to reach a deal if they could end if they couldnt they go their separate ways. But that means you will get some discrimination for scheerer. But you live with no little bit because if youre in a society where well down the road from plus levy ferguson we are a long way from that there still is racism and sexism and homophobia but far less than there used to be if you leave these to the parties then you can get them as a private matter. Vote mean to quarrel with moderators prerogative were not operating under common law of. But we did pass the civil rights of 64 thank goodness the caller bader discrimination act so were dealing with actual lot and statues and we have to grapple with and they do include words that say because of Sexual Orientation or religion is a distinction without a difference im not making it not because youre a catholic but yer believes. Right . Said then as a normative mattered to we want to that . That is the real unspoken and rask it isnt millenials lgbtq but i dont serve mormons or baptist your version is wrong. Yes. [laughter] do you want to sit here . [laughter] there is a Great Variety of values they put themselves into the platoon that is why it is a federal law to stop the problem. Rightly so but then justice says the open or not to do this in 25 years. It is its affirmative action a real statute that was codified in federal law this is the core of the civilrights can so talking about affirmative action this is not affirmative action. I think basically what i hear right now that this is separation of church and state. You are entitled to have your opinion as a human being the you were not entitled to take those feelings and beliefs to force someone alzheimers someone else into a corner we are growing as a nation tour except one another for those differences to solve the problems of the disease and poverty and hate ayatollah eleanor laid something so miniscule would take so much effort and time as a cake when people are murdered or not getting the medicine that they need is in a different context but is the separation of religion and state and state should not be ball involved in religion and if you pick and choose you would not have a business on main street america. Exactly right. That is why you dont have to have this compulsion against people but more broadly the connotation of what theyre doing because simply people are not asserting these claims to get exemption it is hassle you lose business even the most devoted people think it is part of the of Core Principles in does scholars that talk about it is of the state imposing their religion on anyone is to the contrary thank god were not dealing with the world of jim crow with that social monopoly and segregation by having a federal law that allows the freedom of association. I hear you say it is an important question but a number of ways to express his opinion he can write the oped and protest or wear a shirt. Any number of things the bass says he cannot do that he is fully entitled to secure his religious belief but all we say is when you decide to sell to one person you have to sell to another but nobody is talking forcing anyone to believe something else. Freshman at George Washington university so what is the exercise clause under First Amendment for the colorado civilrights law . To technically make it unconstitutional to make the cake . As a mnuchin in the opening remarks it was written by a the radicals included scalia it was the 30year anomaly in the jurisprudence that encompasses the 60s civil rights cases that courts have that general exemption but one Division Said no weather prohibition on drugs if it doesnt target religion just as the incident version of the if you want relief you have to go to the legislature that is why we have of nearly the unanimous result to if led by kennedy and schumer in the house at the time that is why we have half of the states but that consensus has changed over time regardless that is why the free exercise claim plays out as i described in a way to treat differently spirit the words since billy at are irrelevant he said when you start granting these exemptions for a one federal law or state law or another the and it makes it a conscious lot and to itself otherwise your courting anarchy. Plan that is my argument with Jack Phillips. Allowing businesses to pick who they serve. I feel like you are dancing on the fact. I distinguished between the different types of events and thats where the distinction is if you wouldnt serve someone then you have to serve it to others. A baker is happy to sell a cake saying happy birthday to anyone except black people. I wouldnt excuse him from death because he is fine conveying the message happy birthday, he just doesnt like black people. On the other hand, he leaves it celebrates a message and event. There is something to be celebrated and therefore will not appreciate a cake for a samesex wedding but it is a case out of Northern Ireland and he doesnt want to have a cake that says yes or no for gay marriage rather than the message conveyed in the problems. Before the break there are restrooms on the first floor and downstairs of the lower lobby. Before we leave, lets have a round of applause for the speaker. [applause] a look at the line outside the Supreme Court earlier today as the court . Do here. The owner of the cake shop refused to make a cake for a gay couples wedding saying he doesnt vacat bake cakes if theo against his religion. Next, brock long testifies about Disaster Relief funding then a panel for political activists talk about their opposition to the Trump Administration and later a look at the week ahead in congress. Fema administrator brock long was on capitol hill testifying about federal Disaster Relief funding. He gave members of the House Appropriations subcommittee an update on the Recovery Efforts in texas, florida, puerto rico and the virgin islands