Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n (16-111)

argument 16-111

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 27m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the First Amendment argument about compelled speech in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case sixteen one hundred and eleven masterpiece Cake Shop versus Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Ms. Wagoner?

Allison Brown Wagoner 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing people to express messages that violate their religious convictions. Yet the Commission requires Mr. Phillips to do just that, ordering him to sketch, sculpt, and hand paint cakes that celebrate a view of marriage in violation of his religious convictions.

Antonin Scalia 0:37

They don't commission a cake just for them, but they walk into the shop, they see a lovely cake and they say we'd like to purchase it for the celebration of our marriage tonight. The Colorado law would prohibit that, would you claim that you are entitled to an exception?

Allison Brown Wagoner 0:58

Absolutely not. The compelled speech doctrine is triggered by compelled speech and in the context of a pre made cake, that is not compelled speech. Mr Phillips is happy to sell anything in his store. Yes, he did express himself when he made it, and the purpose for which he expressed it is important to the compelled speech doctrine and how it applies. But when he I'm

Elena Kagan 1:22

sorry, he did refuse to speak.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:26

So So s so if it if you agree that it's speech, then w why can he not refuse to sell the cake that's in the window, according to Justice Ginsburg's hypothetical?

Allison Brown Wagoner 1:36

Well in the context of if it's already been placed in the stream of commerce in a public accommodation setting, his speech has been completed. He he intended to speak through that cake with the purpose of whatever it was when he created it. In contrast, though, when he has a different purpose and is expressing a message through a cake, it would render a different result. I'm sorry,

Elena Kagan 1:57

didn't he refuse to sell cupcakes that he sells regularly to the public. to um some same sex couples who intended to marry.

Allison Brown Wagoner 2:08

That allegation was never involved in the complaint, the formal charges, the ALJ's decision but I thought

Elena Kagan 2:15

I'm a little bit surprised by what you're saying because your briefs seem to suggest differently. that the couple was looking at his already pre designed cakes. that he appears to uh sell without any customisation And they sat down with him and he said, I don't supply cakes of any kind to gay couples. So I thought this cake was about his refusal to supply a cake for any wedding ceremony.

Allison Brown Wagoner 2:46

Justice Sudemeyer, that's not how he responded to the couple. The couple came in and they requested a custom cake for their wedding. At that point, they brought in a folder with all kinds of designs they wanted to discuss and ended up purchasing a rainbow layered cake or received a free rainbow layered cake, which certainly is expression. The order below requires Mr. Phillips also to include words and symbols on his cake. It is that broad. So if, for example, Mr. Phillips had used a Bible verse on a cake in the past, he would be compelled to use that Bible verse in a different way. Where does it

Antonin Scalia 3:20

where does it say? I I thought the the requirement was a supply A custom made cake as he would to Any other shopper? But that he didn't have to convey somebody else's message. That is he didn't have to Write anything. on the gate.

Allison Brown Wagoner 3:44

In Petitioners Appendix fifty seven A the order is provided and that order requires him to provide anything that he would provide on a cake in another setting for a a marriage between a man and a woman, which includes words and images that he would provide

Antonin Scalia 3:59

that and say let's make the assumption that He if he makes custom made cakes for others, he must make it for this Yeah. But he doesn't have to write anything for anybody. He doesn't have to write a message that he disagrees with.

Allison Brown Wagoner 4:17

Well, this Court has recognized in Hurley as well as in other decisions that artistic expression doesn't need to include words and symbols to express a message or to be protected speech.

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:28

Well just just one more c thing and then uh we'll leave this part alone, so at least as far as I'm concerned. Suppose the couple goes in And seized the cake in the window and the cake has a biblical verse. Does he have to sell that cake?