process word

1) part onewill provide it at the end with a minmum of 300 words2) part twoThe three readings we’re working with for this next assignment aren’t simply “pro-con” on whether a baker should be compelled to make wedding cakes for gay couples, they each make the argument in a different way.In “A Baker’s First Amendment Rights,” Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis argue that this is an issue of freedom of speech. Their argument is that making it illegal for him to refuse would “would force him to create expressive products carrying a message he rejects. That’s unconstitutional.”In “Even the Bernini of Buttercream has to Serve Gay Couples, “Steve Sanders argues the issue is not about free speech. He argues a baker is a businessperson who is not allowed to discriminate against anyone. He writes “And so the simplest and best way out of this case would be for the Supreme Court to avoid the messy question of whether bakery products are constitutionally protected expression. …. It is just saying that he can’t discriminate among the people who seek to buy his art.”George and Girgis and Sanders are all lawyers, but R. Eric Thomas is a playwright and editor for Elle magazine. His essay is personal, but it is NOT without evidence or reasoning.For each of these three arguments, make a list of the evidence they use to support their claim. Then, write about how the evidence is used. (This means explaining how does each particular piece of evidence fit the argument.)For example: “The baker’s opinion about marriage isn’t one that a majority of Americans hold. A2017 Pew Research Center survey found that Americans support same-sexmarriage by a margin of nearly two-to-one (http://www.peoplepress.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-amonggroups-that-had-been-skeptical/). Forty-seven percent of Republicans and 74percent of Democrats voiced support of same-sex marriage in a 2017 Gallup poll(http://news.gallup.com/poll/210566/support-gay-marriage-edges-newhigh.aspx). But what these numbers don’t reflect is how these views manifestthemselves in daily life for L.G.B.T. Americans. This case is a public reminderthat, though the law may guarantee a right, an individual’s actions can affect theway a group experiences its freedom.”Thomas presents two sets of statistics supporting his assertion that most Americans don’t share the baker Jack Phillips opposition to gay marriage. He follows them by saying that even though the majority of Americans support gay marriage, and even though it’s legal, it doesn’t mean that gay Americans have the same freedom as heterosexual couples, if discrimination is found to be legal.3) part threeQuestions for Readings (You can cut and paste this into the submission box and then write in your answers.)“Let Us Eat Cake”Why wasn’t R. Eric Thomas’s husband-to-be available to attend the Wedding Expo? Thomas gives this detail, but doesn’t emphasize it. Why do you think this might be?Give some examples (direct textual quotes) that show his sense of humor. (You or other members of your group might have looked at this in the first Discussion Board.What are some reasons he might use this light-hearted tone?Give some examples where his tone is more serious.“Even the Bernini of Buttercream has to Serve Gay Couples.”Sanders qualifies his argument by saying it would be different if Phillips were being asked to make a cake with an offensive symbol. Why does he say that’s not the case in this situation?What does he mean here by “the grandiose role he imagines for himself”?Sanders writes: “Grappling with Mr. Phillips’s speech and religion arguments would drag the court into esoteric questions about what other common business activities should count as First Amendment-protected expression (how about engraving the rings, or driving the limo?), or whether piping whipped cream into rosettes should qualify as an “exercise of religion.” Even if we assume Mr. Phillips is sincere about the grandiose role he imagines for himself in every customer’s wedding, similar claims could be easily invented by other business owners seeking a respectable-sounding pretext to discriminate.”3. What language in the passage below shows Sanders’ tone? (Write the words or phrases, then explain your thinking.)“The lawyers for Mr. Phillips — who is supported by the Trump administration —build their argument around the fantastical idea that he should be exempt from Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because, through his creations of flour and fondant, he is not only honoring God, he is somehow voicing his views about, and actively participating in, every wedding he caters. “4. Both George and Gergis in their argument and Sanders in his cite a Supreme Court ruling about a Jehovah’s Witness not being required to salute the flag. In your own words, explain their different perspectives about this?5. George and Gergis argue that creating a wedding cake is protected speech. Find the passage in the text where they state this and their reasoning specifically and quote it or paraphrase it here.please read the articles below to answer the questions about,for your attention, part one i will provide it at the end, it will be something about the community with 300 words. will provide it when i recieve part one and two.please have each part in a separate word doc
opinion___a_baker___s_first_amendment_rights___the_new_york_times_1_.pdf

opinion___even_the_bernini_of_buttercream_has_to_serve_gay_couples___the_new_york_times_1_.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
process word
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

opinion___let_us_buy_cake___the_new_york_times_1_.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1/15/2018
Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights – The New York Times
OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
A Baker’s First Amendment Rights
Jack Phillips is the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, where he makes elaborate wedding
cakes and other baked goods. Matthew Staver for The New York Times
By Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis
Dec. 4, 2017
You need the First Amendment precisely when your ideas offend others or ?out
the majority’s orthodoxies. And then it protects more than your freedom to speak
your mind; it guards your freedom not to speak the mind of another.
Thus, in classic “compelled speech” rulings, the Supreme Court has protected the
right not to be forced to say, do or create anything expressing a message one
rejects. Most famously, in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), it barred a state from
denying Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to attend public schools if they refused to
salute the ?ag. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the court prevented New
Hampshire from denying people the right to drive if they refused to display on
license plates the state’s libertarian-?avored motto “live free or die.”

1/7
1/15/2018
Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights – The New York Times
On Tuesday, the court will consider whether Colorado may deny Jack Phillips, the
owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the right to sell custom wedding cakes because
he cannot in conscience create them for same-sex weddings. Mr. Phillips, who
has run his bakery since 1993, sells off-the-shelf items to anyone, no questions
asked. But he cannot deploy his artistic skills to create cakes celebrating themes
that violate his religious and moral convictions. Thus he does not design cakes
for divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, Halloween parties or same-sex
weddings.
Colorado’s order that he create same-sex wedding cakes (or quit making any
cakes at all) would force him to create expressive products carrying a message
he rejects. That’s unconstitutional.
Some fear a slippery slope, arguing that anything can be expressive. What if
someone refused to rent out folding chairs for the reception? Or what about
restaurant owners who exclude blacks because they think God wills segregation?
If we exempt Mr. Phillips, won’t we have to exempt these people from antidiscrimination law?
Our point is not that forcing people to sell a product or service for an event
always compels them to endorse the event. It’s that forcing them to create speech
celebrating the event does. And it’s well-established that First Amendment
“speech” includes creative work (“artistic speech”) ranging from paintings to
video games.
Unlike folding chairs or restaurant service, custom wedding cakes are full?edged speech under the First Amendment. Creating them cannot be
conveniently classi?ed as “conduct, not expression” to rationalize state coercion.
After all, the aesthetic purpose of wedding cakes — combined with the range and
complexity of their possible designs — makes them just as capable of bearing
expressive content as other artistic speech. Mr. Phillips’s cakes are admired
precisely for their aesthetic qualities, which re?ect his ideas and sensibilities. A
plaster sculpture of the same size and look would without question be protected.
That wedding cakes are edible is utterly beside the point. Their main purpose
isn’t to sate hunger or even please the palate; it is aesthetic and expressive. They
?gure at receptions as a centerpiece and then part of the live program, much like
a prop in a play. And no one denies that forcing artists to design props for plays
promoting a state-imposed message would be unconstitutional.

2/7
1/15/2018
Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights – The New York Times
If wedding cakes are expressive, whether by words or mere festive design,
what’s their message? We can tell by their context since, as the court notes, a
symbolic item’s context “may give meaning to the symbol.” Thus, the court found
that an upside-down ?ag with a peace sign carried an antiwar message —
protected as speech — because of the context of its display. Likewise, a wedding
cake’s context speci?es its message: This couple has formed a marriage. When
the speci?c context is a same-sex wedding, that message is one Mr. Phillips
doesn’t believe and cannot in conscience af?rm. So coercing him to create a cake
for the occasion is compelled artistic speech.
Note that this argument wouldn’t cover all requirements to make artistic items.
The law may force photographers to do photo portraits for Latinos as well as
whites since that doesn’t yet force them to create art bearing an idea they reject,
which is all the compelled-speech doctrine forbids. But custom wedding cakes
carry a message speci?c to each wedding: This is a marriage.
Can Colorado justify its compulsion anyway? Some say yes: Fighting
discrimination — disfavored conduct, not speech — is the general goal of
Colorado’s public-accommodations law. And if that goal is legitimate, they
continue, so is every application of this law.
Remarkably, given how commonly one encounters this answer, the court has
explicitly considered and rejected it twice. In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay,
Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), the court held that while antidiscrimination laws do not “as a general matter” violate the First Amendment,
they do when “applied in a peculiar way” that burdens speech. In that case and in
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the government said there was sexualorientation discrimination, both times under its public-accommodations laws.
The goal in both was to ?ght discrimination rooted in opposition to “homosexual
conduct.” Still, the court said both times, this generic goal could not justify
coercion that interfered with the content of anyone’s expression.
In these cases, after all, the precise act being targeted just is the speaker’s
choosing (“discriminating”) among which ideas to express — exactly what the
First Amendment exists to protect. As the court put it in Hurley, the “point of all
speech protection” is “to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s
eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”
So to use the force of law to compel Mr. Phillips to create same-sex wedding
cakes, Colorado must identify another goal. Is it to ensure that all couples have
access to a cake? But they do: Colorado hasn’t even suggested otherwise.

3/7
1/15/2018
Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights – The New York Times
Choices like Mr. Phillips’s amount to a “handful in a country of 300 million
people,” according to Andrew Koppelman, a constitutional scholar and gay-rights
advocate.
The only claim left is that Mr. Phillips’s expressive choice causes what some refer
to as dignitary harm: the distress of confronting ideas one ?nds demeaning or
hurtful. Yet accepting that justi?cation would shatter what the court in Texas v.
Johnson (1989) called a “bedrock principle” — namely that “the government may
not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society ?nds the idea itself
offensive.”
At some level, Colorado itself gets it. Three times the state has declined to force
pro-gay bakers to provide a Christian patron with a cake they could not in
conscience create given their own convictions on sexuality and marriage.
Colorado was right to recognize their First Amendment right against compelled
speech. It’s wrong to deny Jack Phillips that same right.
Robert P. George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton. Sherif Girgis is a graduate of Yale Law School and a
doctoral student in philosophy at Princeton.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/nytopinion) and Twitter
(@NYTopinion) (http://twitter.com/NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter
(http://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/opiniontoday/).
(https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?
app_id=9869919170&link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F04%
amendment-wedding-cake.html&smid=fbshare&name=A%20Baker%E2%80%99s%20First%20Amendment%20Rights&redirect_uri=
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F04%2Fopinion%2F?rstamendment-weddingcake.html&text=A%20Baker%E2%80%99s%20First%20Amendment%20Rights)
(mailto:?
subject=NYTimes.com%3A%20A%20Baker%E2%80%99s%20First%20Amendment%20Ri
sex%20weddings%20is%20unconstitutional.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20why.%0A%0Ahttp
amendment-wedding-cake.html)
1009
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times
editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
SEE SAMPLE (HTTPS://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/NEWSLETTERS/SAMPLE/OPINION-TODAY)
Enter your email address

4/7
1/15/2018
Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples – The New York Times
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve
Gay Couples
Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who argues that he can refuse to sell a cake to two men for
their wedding. Nick Cote for The New York Times
By Steve Sanders
Dec. 2, 2017
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. — The Supreme Court is to hear arguments Tuesday in
the case of a Colorado baker (http://www.scotusblog.com/case?les/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/), Jack
Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for two gay men, Charlie Craig and
David Mullins. The legal issues in this case are potentially vexing and
complicated, but there is a simple way the court could avoid most of them and
resolve this case through the application of well-established law.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/even-the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html
1/6
1/15/2018
Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples – The New York Times
The lawyers for Mr. Phillips — who is supported by the Trump administration —
build their argument around the fantastical idea that he should be exempt from
Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because, through his creations of ?our and
fondant, he is not only honoring God, he is somehow voicing his views about, and
actively participating in, every wedding he caters. Thus, they argue, his First
Amendment speech and religion rights take precedence over Mr. Craig and Mr.
Mullins’s right to be treated with dignity in the marketplace. Colorado, they say,
cannot compel Mr. Phillips to support something he regards as sinful.
This argument is an appeal more to emotion and sentimentality than to legal
reasoning. His supporters portray Mr. Phillips as a humble Christian shopkeeper
and the Bernini of buttercream who is not only expressing his love through every
cake, but invisibly looking on with approval as the newlyweds cut the ?rst piece.
Mr. Phillips believes he is an arbiter of which marriages are “sacred” and
“legitimate.”
This is all an absurd conceit that should be rejected. Mr. Phillips is a businessman
selling a commercial product, and the law must treat him as such. As the
constitutional law professors Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter write in their
friend-of-the-court brief (http://www.scotusblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/16-111_bsac_american_unity_fund.pdf) in support of the
couple, “No one looks at a wedding cake and re?ects, ?The baker has blessed this
union.’ ”
Grappling with Mr. Phillips’s speech and religion arguments would drag the court
into esoteric questions about what other common business activities should
count as First Amendment-protected expression (how about engraving the rings,
or driving the limo?), or whether piping whipped cream into rosettes should
qualify as an “exercise of religion.” Even if we assume Mr. Phillips is sincere
about the grandiose role he imagines for himself in every customer’s wedding,
similar claims could be easily invented by other business owners seeking a
respectable-sounding pretext to discriminate.
The lawyers and activists supporting Mr. Phillips have repeatedly pressed
similar speech and religion arguments, with no success in the lower courts, to
advance a larger goal: creating a right of business owners to refuse service to
gays and lesbians as a form of resistance to marriage equality. But this is more of
a political project than a question of law, and the court should reject the invitation
to create safe spaces for anti-gay discrimination.

2/6
1/15/2018
Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples – The New York Times
Does it matter that Mr. Phillips’s wedding cakes are individually created and may
even, in some sense, be “art”? No. Many goods and services, from bespoke suits
to bathroom tiling, involve professional and even artistic judgment by the people
we hire to execute them. But just because something is aesthetically pleasing or
involves creativity and even passion does not mean the activity of creating that
object can be insulated from ordinary laws governing business practices. First
Amendment law is abundant on this point. If Mr. Phillips decided that he could
not be true to his muse without the use of banned coloring agents, would the food
safety laws have to yield? Of course not.
And so the simplest and best way out of this case would be for the Supreme Court
to avoid the messy question of whether bakery products are constitutionally
protected expression. Colorado is not seeking to impose its aesthetic, political or
religious judgment on Mr. Phillips’s art. It is just saying that he can’t discriminate
among the people who seek to buy his art.
An anti-discrimination law is a regulation not of expression, but of conduct. Like
many other states, Colorado prohibits Mr. Phillips, as the owner of a business
open to the public, from refusing to sell certain products to certain customers
based on their race, religion, sexual orientation or other protected
characteristics. It is well settled that such laws are constitutional. If Picasso
opened a shop in Colorado to sell his paintings, the same rules would apply to
him.
Even if we were to grant that Mr. Phillips is engaged in some form of selfexpression, the Supreme Court has explained many times that the First
Amendment does not prevent generally applicable social and business
regulations from imposing incidental burdens on speech. For example,
newspapers may not be censored, but their owners may be required, like all
other businesses, to pay taxes, even if they would rather use the money to do
more investigative reporting.
Mr. Phillips might have a legitimate right to refuse to make a cake carrying
certain words or images he ?nds offensive, just as an African-American baker
could refuse to decorate something with a white-power symbol. But that is not
this case. He refused service to the gay couple before they even talked about any
design.
Mr. Phillips has become an icon for evangelicals who imagine themselves as a
beleaguered minority battling the social and legal consensus in favor of L.G.B.T.
equality. A brief by a group of conservative academics

3/6
1/15/2018
Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples – The New York Times
(http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16111_tsac_34_legal_scholars.pdf)compares him to the Jehovah’s Witnesses
children in a landmark 1943 Supreme Court decision who fought for the right to
refuse to salute the ?ag. But the two situations are so factually and legally
remote that the analogy cannot be taken seriously.
No one has required Mr. Phillips to pledge allegiance to gay marriage. Nor has
anyone denied him the freedom to speak, write or pray against it. Mr. Phillips is
not a church, a political pamphleteer or a schoolchild being forced to honor a
graven image. He is a small-business owner who makes and sells pretty things to
eat.
That is honest and important work, but the First Amendment does not give
merchants like him the right to refuse to comply with anti-discrimination statutes
just because they think their personal beliefs are more important. Beliefs may
not be regulated by the government, but business practices can be. This principle
is well settled, and applying it to Mr. Phillips would make this a much easier case.
Steve Sanders (http://www.law.indiana.edu/about/people/bio.php?name=sanders-steve) is an associate professor at
the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/nytopinion) and Twitter
(@NYTopinion) (http://twitter.com/NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter
(http://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/opiniontoday/).
A version of this article appears in print on December 2, 2017, on Page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: Even the
Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples. Order Reprints (http://www.nytreprints.com/) | Today’s Paper
(http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html) | Subscribe
(https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html?campaignId=48JQY)
(https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?
app_id=9869919170&link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F02%
the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html&smid=fbshare&name=Even%20the%20Bernini%20of%20Buttercream%20Has%20to%20Serve%2
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F02%2Fopinion%2Feventhe-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gaycouples.html&text=Even%20the%20Bernini%20of%20Buttercream%20Has%20to%20Ser
(mailto:?
subject=NYTimes.com%3A%20Even%20the%20Bernini%20of%20Buttercream%20Has%2
sex%20union%20con?icts%20with%20his%20religious%20beliefs.%0A%0Ahttps%3A%2F
the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html)
597
Related Coverage

4/6
1/15/2018
Opinion | Let Us Buy Cake – The New York Times
OPINION
Let Us Buy Cake
Josh Cochran
By R. Eric Thomas
Dec. 2, 2017
At my middle brother’s wedding, the cake was so good I ate three slices. That
was six years ago. Recently, on their anniversary, I texted my brother and his
wife a picture of the slices of cake I ate with the message “This was delicious.
Thank you!” My brother responded, “Why do you still have this?” As if there
were other things to store on my phone besides thousands of pictures of things
I’ve eaten.

1/7
1/15/2018
Opinion | Let Us Buy Cake – The New York Times
My youngest brother had a Baltimore-themed reception; the cake was a giant
Berger Cookie, a specialty of the city. Years later, I was reminiscing with my
mother and lamented not taking some cake home with me. “Why do you
remember this?” she asked. I replied, “It seemed important.”
If you have good cake at your wedding, I will send you a handwritten thank-you
note every year. If you have bad wedding cake, I will complain about you with my
dying breath. And God help the baker who comes between me and my cake.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece
Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Masterpiece Cakeshop sounds to
me like the name of a lavish PBS dramatization of “The Great British Bake Off”
in period costume. It’s not, unfortunately. In 2012, Charlie Craig and David
Mullins, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code ESSAYHELP15