Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #MasterpieceCakeshop
Most recents (5)
So this is precisely the issue we raised in our SCOTUS amicus brief in #MasterpieceCakeshop & that we litigated & won in 1968 in Newman v Piggie Park. The owner of Piggie Park didn’t want to serve Black ppl he said, b/c he believed that “race mixing is against the will of God.”
You can read our brief here. naacpldf.org/files/about-us… Many ppl seemed to have forgotten that religious belief was the leading rationale offered by segregationists.
Here, for example, is the trial judge in Loving v Virginia, before the SCOTUS struck down Va’s anti-miscegenation law. 
I've read a lot of smart things about #MasterpieceCakeshop in the past 30h, and it's clarified my thinking. There is so much unresolved, but I want to tease out a few things which seem clearer to me:
1. This particular baker would lose before the Supreme Court if the case had originally been heard before a neutral arbiter. The record seems clear that he did not want to produce goods for any same-sex ceremony, even if it required no artistic/personal expression on his part.
(As Justice Ginsburg notes in dissent, one can easily draw a line between Cakes With Words and Cakes Without.)
BREAKING: SCOTUS reversed the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, based on concerns specific to the case.
The Court did NOT rule that the Constitution gives a right to discriminate.
The Court did NOT rule that the Constitution gives a right to discriminate.
Some background on #MasterpieceCakeshop: Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado in July of 2012. They were planning to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception, and invited Charlie’s mom along to help them pick it out.
When the shop owner realized the cake was for Dave and Charlie, he refused to sell them a cake because they are LGBT. aclu.org/cases/masterpi…
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/…
aclu.org/sites/default/…
1/ A few quick, Colorado-centric thoughts on the #MasterpieceCakeshop oral argument. supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments… #copolitics #colaw
2/ Coloradan and newest Justice Neil Gorsuch’s questioning favored Masterpiece. Gorsuch expressed concern that the Civil Rights Commission was hostile to certain religious beliefs …
3/ …and that the remedial training the Commission ordered independnetly violated the First Amendment. It looks like Gorsuch is a firm vote to reverse (which most everyone expected).
