SCOTUS to take the cake

[RavenSky]

1. Did she refuse service? No. She was ready, willing and able to provide the bible-shaped cake he requested. What she was not willing to do was to write a specific message on the cake because she found it obscene.

Likewise, a New Jersey ShopRite refused to write "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler Campbell" on a cake and Hands On Originals refused to print the Lexington Pride Festival logo on t-shirts. There is a strong argument for the separation of the product from the words/pictures on the product in these and many similar cases.

Another example in a different context would be t-shirts with obscene or political messages on them - do venues have the right to forbid "message" t-shirts? Again, there is a distinction made between the product and the words/images printed on the product.

It is only plausible IF we accept the premise that the product and the words/images printed on the product are one and the same.

Ravensky,

You are arguing alternative facts. She did refuse service. She admitted to refusing service. She doesn’t deny she refused service. The commission report is premised upon a refusal of service. This dialogue cannot progress if you persist to repeat this assertion which is contrary to the facts.

I do not accept your premise that refusing to write specific words on the cake while being 100% ready, willing and able to bake the cake, ice the cake, and even to provide the tools for the customer to write whatever he wants on the cake is "denial of service."

I can stipulate that Silva was willing to provide service as to the cake but denied service as to the writing, if you wish - but that won't further the argument in the direction that you want it to go

 

[RavenSky]

Moderation Notice

You can find that discussion at: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...s-of-Cake-Derail-from-SCOTUS-to-take-the-cake

Let's please try to keep this thread on topic (legal and/or political ramifications) for this forum. Thank you.

/mod

 

[RavenSky]

...what your reply focuses upon is a justification for her refusal to make the cake requested.

There are two points here. 1.) Refusal of service by not making the cake requested and 2.) The reason to refuse to make the kind of cake requested.

Marjorie never argued she didn’t refuse service, wise choice since logically she did by not making the requested cake. The commission did not find as a fact that Marjorie had not refused service, another wise choice since the facts demonstrate she refused to make the requested cake.

I do not agree that Silva "never argued she didn’t refuse service" or that the CCRC addressed whether refusing the written part was a blanket refusal of service, but I will have to leave that aside until I have time to further research the exact wording of that ruling. Every media report has described it as two separate issues, the cake vs the writing on the cake; and made it clear that she did not deny the cake.

That said, for this post, let's assume that the cake and the requested writing on it cannot be separated...

Marjorie justified her refusal on the basis of speech and the commission ruled her refusal was on the basis of speech.

Likewise, a New Jersey ShopRite refused to write "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler Campbell" on a cake and Hands On Originals refused to print the Lexington Pride Festival logo on t-shirts. There is a strong argument for the separation of the product from the words/pictures on the product

These are examples of 1.) service refused to the request and 2.) the reason for refusal was speech.

Yes, I'm clear as to where he thinks he is going with it. He is trying to say that a "cake with written message/images on it" is exactly the same thing as a "cake with no written message on it".

Yes. He’s assuming custom cake making, of the kind Phillips does, is expressive conduct, therefore speech. It’s on the basis of this assumption he raises the question of viewpoint discrimination in application of the law.

If Alito's focus is the CCRC's potential anti-christian bias...

His focus is viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the 1st Amendment speech clause. Here’s what his argument would look like under viewpoint discrimination jurisprudence. So, the topic or subject is gay marriage. Two points of view is to favor same sex marriage and the other view is to oppose same sex marriage. Those are two points of view on the subject of same sex marriage.

The customer wanted a message denouncing same sex marriage in Marjorie’s case, and Marjorie’s personal belief discrimination against gays is wrong. In Phillip’s case, (assumed) expressive message in a custom cake for a same sex wedding and refusal because of his personal belief same sex marriage is wrong. Two viewpoints, two competing beliefs, on one topic of same sex marriage.

Here is the problem for me - I think Alito's assumption (and Phillips contention) that a wedding cake without any written message or cake topper or other overt/obvious message/image on the cake itself is an "expressive message" fails on its own face. I think where you are going with the discussion is interesting, but not with the Phillips case.

Further complicating the parallel is that the Silva case involved a customer viewpoint about homosexuality. Yes, William Jack** tried to make it a little bit about same-sex marriage with the inclusion of the image of two groomsmen, but he requested bible-shaped cakes, not wedding cakes, and the requested messages make it clear his intent:

He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22"... He wanted [the second bible-shaped cake] decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."

The Hands On Printing case might be a better substitute. Silva's case involved an anti-gay message whereas the Hands On Printing case involved a pro-gay (Gay Pride Festival) message.

The prevailing viewpoint, when the commission has applied the law, is for the pro-same sex marriage view to prevail (Phillips case) and Marjorie’s personal belief, but the anti-same sex marriage view to lose, Marjorie’s case involving customer with requested anti-same sex marriage and Phillips personal belief same sex marriage is wrong.

Same objections to these details as before.

By Alito’s logic, the commission is picking the winner and loser based on the viewpoint, pro-same sex marriage wins but anti-same sex marriage loses.

That’s the argument under view point discrimination jurisprudence.

The problem will be if they all choose to make that leap, they will be saying that "the product" is exactly the same as "the product plus the writing/images on it" -

Right. If the Court concludes expressive conduct was present, then Alito can argue for viewpoint discrimination. Here’s why Alito wants this argument.

The Court could do the following:

1. Fine, it’s speech, but the State has a compelling interest, narrowly tailored, and has satisfied strict scrutiny. Therefore, baker loses or
2. Fine, it’s speech, but it’s expressive conduct, the law regulates non-expressive conduct, the law is neutral on its fact towards expressive conduct, and therefore, the more forgiving O’Brien test is required. The state law meets the O’Brien test. Ergo, baker loses

But Alito May have a joker card to play if the Court goes either one or two above, which is:

1. Bravo! Court found speech was involved, and the law satisfies strict scrutiny, but the commission applied the law discriminatorily on the basis of the viewpoint. Therefore, law survives but baker wins here or
2. Bravo, it’s expressive speech, the law survives the O’Brien test, but the law was applied to discriminate against speech. Ergo, law survives, but baker wins here.

In other words, Alito sense the baker could still lose if speech/expressive conduct is present. So, Alito provides a possible winning, river card of the commission applying the law on the basis of discriminating against viewpoints.

FYI, I’d be shocked if Alito’s outcome is followed.

I think your analysis is accurate as to Alito's thinking; however, I will be shocked if even "expressive speech" is found. Per your analysis, SCOTUS first has to find that Phillips' wedding cake is "expressive speech" before we ever get to the question of whether the CCRC discriminated.

I personally think the more interesting question is the one involving Silva - is writing a message on a cake "expressive speech" on the part of the baker, and therefore protected, or does a baker (and a t-shirt printer and any other business that prints words/images on products) reserve the right to refuse specific messages - and how does all of this interact with "public accommodation" laws.

Silva won in her case vs the anti-gay customer. She did not have to write messages that she considered obscene. Was it the fact that the messages were (subjectively) obscene? Was it the fact that the messages were anti-protected class? Was it neither of those?

Hands On Printing won their case vs the pro-gay customer. He did not have to print messages that he considered contrary to his religious beliefs in spite of the fact that the customers are a protected class. Was it because the parade is an act rather than a protected class of people in and of itself? (That is one of the arguments Phillips' is making wrt weddings). Was the Kentucky Supreme Court wrong in how they ruled?

The Shop-Rite case didn't go to court as far as I know. They didn't write the words on the cake, stating that they "reserve the right" to reject any messages they disagree with. Is this in violation of "public accommodation" laws or is it acceptable because "children named Adolf" are not a protected class? Does the concept of "viewpoint discrimination" apply here - or only when the customer is a protected class?

In short, I know that SCOTUS can only choose from cases brought before them, but I really think there are far better cases with which to test the balance between public accommodation vs free expression. Baker Phillips' case rests entirely on whether "fondant is expression", and I think that premise is too far out even for this conservative court.

** P.S. In my humble opinion, William Jack deserved to lose his case because he is an even more idiotic version of James O'Keefe, and is worse than Untermensche at constructing analogies. That has nothing to do with the merits of the case... just needed to get it off my chest.

 

[Bomb#20]

A baker in business has already consented to bake cakes.

He didn't consent to bake cakes for what he perceives to be mockeries of his religion's sacraments. You choosing to define someone as consenting to X because he consented to Y is not a substantive argument that he consents to X.

Nobody is forcing them to bake them.

Nobody is forcing a McDonald's employee to fry burgers. The employee already consented to fry burgers. This doesn't stop you from claiming companies like McDonald's are dictatorships and complaining about their CEOs reducing people to tools. You have a blatant double standard.

 

[untermensche]

A baker in business has already consented to bake cakes.

He didn't consent to bake cakes for what he perceives to be mockeries of his religion's sacraments.

His delusions should not be grounds for discrimination.

In a sane society.

There is nothing contained within the Christian religion that says followers should discriminate in this manner.

That is just some delusion in this one baker.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You deem religion to be nonsense, so therefore everyone must bow to your opinion of religion.

I basically agree with religion as nonsense, but that doesn't give me a right to ram that opinion down other peoples' throats.

 

[untermensche]

You deem religion to be nonsense, so therefore everyone must bow to your opinion of religion.

I basically agree with religion as nonsense, but that doesn't give me a right to ram that opinion down other peoples' throats.

That is not my objection.

My objection is what I wrote.

Nowhere are there instructions or requirements to discriminate against gay marriage in any Christian document.

The desire to discriminate originated in this baker's narrow mind.

 

[Bomb#20]

A baker in business has already consented to bake cakes.

He didn't consent to bake cakes for what he perceives to be mockeries of his religion's sacraments.

His delusions should not be grounds for discrimination.

In a sane society.

So what? What the heck does that have to do with the point in dispute?

"His delusions should not be grounds for discrimination. In a sane society." doesn't mean "He consents." It means "A sane society doesn't care whether he consents." You claim he consents. You're wrong. He doesn't consent. What a sane society should do about his non-consent is a whole other question -- but it's a whole other question that a sane society doesn't decide by making believe that he consents. Doing that would be just another theocracy.

There is nothing contained within the Christian religion that says followers should discriminate in this manner.

That is just some delusion in this one baker.

And we should take your word on what "the Christian religion"* contains over the word of actual Christians because, reasons?

(* As though there were only one Christian religion.)

Nowhere are there instructions or requirements to discriminate against gay marriage in any Christian document.

PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS is an instruction issued by two popes.

 

[untermensche]

His delusions should not be grounds for discrimination.

In a sane society.

So what? What the heck does that have to do with the point in dispute?

"His delusions should not be grounds for discrimination. In a sane society." doesn't mean "He consents." It means "A sane society doesn't care whether he consents." You claim he consents. You're wrong. He doesn't consent. What a sane society should do about his non-consent is a whole other question -- but it's a whole other question that a sane society doesn't decide by making believe that he consents. Doing that would be just another theocracy.

There is nothing contained within the Christian religion that says followers should discriminate in this manner.

That is just some delusion in this one baker.

And we should take your word on what "the Christian religion"* contains over the word of actual Christians because, reasons?

(* As though there were only one Christian religion.)

Nowhere are there instructions or requirements to discriminate against gay marriage in any Christian document.

PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS is an instruction issued by two popes.

What I mean by Christian document is an instruction from Jesus.

Popes and the entire Catholic hierarchy discriminates against women.

Does that make it a Christian practice and something Christians should be allowed to do when in business?

 

[Bomb#20]

Nowhere are there instructions or requirements to discriminate against gay marriage in any Christian document.

PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS is an instruction issued by two popes.

What I mean by Christian document is an instruction from Jesus.

In which case there are no Christian documents. There are no instructions from Jesus, full stop. Every Christian bases his religion entirely on his own inner delusions plus instructions from people who claim to speak for Jesus but don't really. So what the heck have "Christian documents" got to do with Christian religion? The absence of requirements to discriminate against gay marriage in instructions from Jesus tells us exactly zero about whether the Christian religion requires it. This is not rocket science.

Popes and the entire Catholic hierarchy discriminates against women.

Duh. That's a reason to despise Catholicism. That's not a reason to make asinine claims like "There is nothing contained within the Christian religion that says followers should discriminate in this manner." If you want to argue for your point of view, try composing your arguments out of true statements instead of false statements. You'll get better arguments that way.

 

[untermensche]

What I mean by Christian document is an instruction from Jesus.

In which case there are no Christian documents.

There are many alleged instructions from Jesus in the New Testament.

Your ignorance of them doesn't make them go away.

Popes and the entire Catholic hierarchy discriminates against women.

Duh. That's a reason to despise Catholicism.

According to you it means that any Catholic in business can legally discriminate against women since the Pope does it.

Just like you think Catholics can legally discriminate against gay people in business because the Pope says so.

Your position is lunacy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

These are examples of 1.) service refused to the request and 2.) the reason for refusal was speech.

Actual speech/expression. Also, you are really bogging down on the technical gutter here. Ravensky is clearly making a distinction between flat out denial of service (no wedding cake for you) verses denial of a particular request, in general demeaning or seriously bad taste (I'll make you a bible shaped cake, I just don't want to put demeaning speech on it). You just keep jumping up and down saying "Haw! Haw! Service refused! Service refused!" It sounds petty.

Yes. He’s assuming custom cake making, of the kind Phillips does, is expressive conduct, therefore speech. It’s on the basis of this assumption he raises the question of viewpoint discrimination in application of the law.

The occasions raised actually included tangible speech/expression. In the Philips case, the expression is allegedly in the application of fondant and piping. Which is the dumbest argument the right wing has tried to make. Sadly, it seems like it could work. No symbols, no letters, no language, no pictures. Just the fondant and piping. We are to believe that the application of fondant and piping icing is "expression".

The prevailing viewpoint, when the commission has applied the law, is for the pro-same sex marriage view to prevail (Phillips case) and Marjorie’s personal belief, but the anti-same sex marriage view to lose, Marjorie’s case involving customer with requested anti-same sex marriage and Phillips personal belief same sex marriage is wrong.

By Alito’s logic, the commission is picking the winner and loser based on the viewpoint, pro-same sex marriage wins but anti-same sex marriage loses.

That’s the argument under view point discrimination jurisprudence.

Yeah, Moore-Coulter for the win! In one case, there is actual expression, and in the other, no actual expression. The apples to apples parallel would be selling a wedding cake with no message to a gay couple and a wedding cake with no message to a straight couple. Has the commission said that refusal of selling a wedding cake to a straight couple was acceptable? I'm thinking not. That is the parallel. Not comparing anti-gay marriage symbology andscriptural references on a cake with a cake with no nothing but decorations which are to be found on any random wedding cake.

Right. If the Court concludes expressive conduct was present, then Alito can argue for viewpoint discrimination. Here’s why Alito wants this argument.

The Court could do the following:

1. Fine, it’s speech, but the State has a compelling interest, narrowly tailored, and has satisfied strict scrutiny. Therefore, baker loses or
2. Fine, it’s speech, but it’s expressive conduct, the law regulates non-expressive conduct, the law is neutral on its fact towards expressive conduct, and therefore, the more forgiving O’Brien test is required. The state law meets the O’Brien test. Ergo, baker loses

But Alito May have a joker card to play if the Court goes either one or two above, which is:

1. Bravo! Court found speech was involved, and the law satisfies strict scrutiny, but the commission applied the law discriminatorily on the basis of the viewpoint. Therefore, law survives but baker wins here or
2. Bravo, it’s expressive speech, the law survives the O’Brien test, but the law was applied to discriminate against speech. Ergo, law survives, but baker wins here.

In other words, Alito sense the baker could still lose if speech/expressive conduct is present. So, Alito provides a possible winning, river card of the commission applying the law on the basis of discriminating against viewpoints.

We can only hope that the other Justices aren't that void of pragmatism and willing to let their own anti-gay bigotry interfere with their decision, creating false equivalences in order to come to the findings they originally wanted to.

 

[James Madison]

1. Did she refuse service? No. She was ready, willing and able to provide the bible-shaped cake he requested. What she was not willing to do was to write a specific message on the cake because she found it obscene.

Likewise, a New Jersey ShopRite refused to write "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler Campbell" on a cake and Hands On Originals refused to print the Lexington Pride Festival logo on t-shirts. There is a strong argument for the separation of the product from the words/pictures on the product in these and many similar cases.

Another example in a different context would be t-shirts with obscene or political messages on them - do venues have the right to forbid "message" t-shirts? Again, there is a distinction made between the product and the words/images printed on the product.

It is only plausible IF we accept the premise that the product and the words/images printed on the product are one and the same.

Ravensky,

You are arguing alternative facts. She did refuse service. She admitted to refusing service. She doesn’t deny she refused service. The commission report is premised upon a refusal of service. This dialogue cannot progress if you persist to repeat this assertion which is contrary to the facts.

I do not accept your premise that refusing to write specific words on the cake while being 100% ready, willing and able to bake the cake, ice the cake, and even to provide the tools for the customer to write whatever he wants on the cake is "denial of service."

I can stipulate that Silva was willing to provide service as to the cake but denied service as to the writing, if you wish - but that won't further the argument in the direction that you want it to go [emoji14]

My premise is supported by the facts. The commission’s finding of fact is that Marjorie refused service. Respondent declined to make the Charging Party’s cakes, as he had envisioned them...” Colorado Civil Rights Division, Determination report, Erin Hayes and Jennifer McPherson of the CCRD.

Logically, this is a correct finding because refusing to make a cake as requested by the customer is a denial of service. Providing a product other than what was requested and instead of what was requested doesn’t change the fact service was denied for what was originally requested.

And the customer wanted more than mere writing on the cake. On one cake, the customer want two groomsmen, holding hands in front of a cross, with a red X over the image. The customer wanted verses included in this cake.

She refused to make a cake with:

1. Two groomsmen holding
2. In front of a cross
3. With an red X over the image
4. Chosen bible verses

Those are the facts of this case. She refused to make that requested cake. Refusal to make that requested cake was a denial of service, a refusal to make the cake requested.

It should be observed that a refusal of service by Marjorie isn’t some fatalistic fact or admission. Denying the fact she refused service. indeed the commission itself stated Marjorie refused service, is denying a fact for the reason that to admit the fact is some concession. It isn’t. Even if it were a concession, facts are facts, whether they are favorable or detrimental.

Ultimately, the commission concluded she refused service because of speech, and therefore, didn’t violate the public accommodation law.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I do not accept your premise that refusing to write specific words on the cake while being 100% ready, willing and able to bake the cake, ice the cake, and even to provide the tools for the customer to write whatever he wants on the cake is "denial of service."

I can stipulate that Silva was willing to provide service as to the cake but denied service as to the writing, if you wish - but that won't further the argument in the direction that you want it to go [emoji14]

My premise is supported by the facts. The commission’s finding of fact is that Marjorie refused service. Respondent declined to make the Charging Party’s cakes, as he had envisioned them...” Colorado Civil Rights Division, Determination report, Erin Hayes and Jennifer McPherson of the CCRD.

Logically, this is a correct finding because refusing to make a cake as requested by the customer is a denial of service. Providing a product other than what was requested and instead of what was requested doesn’t change the fact service was denied for what was originally requested.

And the customer wanted more than mere writing on the cake. On one cake, the customer want two groomsmen, holding hands in front of a cross, with a red X over the image. The customer wanted verses included in this cake.

She refused to make a cake with:

1. Two groomsmen holding
2. In front of a cross
3. With an red X over the image
4. Chosen bible verses

Those are the facts of this case. She refused to make that requested cake. Refusal to make that requested cake was a denial of service, a refusal to make the cake requested.

Charles Manson and George W Bush broke the law. Manson was charged and convicted. Bush was charged and convicted. They both broke the law.

It should be observed that a refusal of service by Marjorie isn’t some fatalistic fact or admission.

Yeah, but...

Show

It is trying to quietly shove the entire camel into the tent, to try and create a juxtaposition between two cases that aren't equivalent, and using it to create a false equivalence to justify the baker being able to discriminate against gays.

 

[James Madison]

Charles Manson and George W Bush broke the law. Manson was charged and convicted. Bush was charged and convicted. They both broke the law.

It should be observed that a refusal of service by Marjorie isn’t some fatalistic fact or admission.

Yeah, but...

Show

View attachment 13727

It is trying to quietly shove the entire camel into the tent, to try and create a juxtaposition between two cases that aren't equivalent, and using it to create a false equivalence to justify the baker being able to discriminate against gays.

Everything in the last paragraph is wrong. Congrats!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Actual speech/expression. Also, you are really bogging down on the technical gutter here. Ravensky is clearly making a distinction between flat out denial of service (no wedding cake for you) verses denial of a particular request, in general demeaning or seriously bad taste (I'll make you a bible shaped cake, I just don't want to put demeaning speech on it). You just keep jumping up and down saying "Haw! Haw! Service refused! Service refused!" It sounds petty.

Alleging some argument is technical isn’t a rebuttal. Ohs noes, whatever shall I do, there’s a technical component to my argument. Oh the horror and unfathomable terror of a technical aspect to an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ruby sparks]

A baker in business has already consented to bake cakes.

He didn't consent to bake cakes for what he perceives to be mockeries of his religion's sacraments. You choosing to define someone as consenting to X because he consented to Y is not a substantive argument that he consents to X.

Nobody is forcing them to bake them.

Nobody is forcing a McDonald's employee to fry burgers. The employee already consented to fry burgers. This doesn't stop you from claiming companies like McDonald's are dictatorships and complaining about their CEOs reducing people to tools. You have a blatant double standard.

What about if someone came in to McDonald's and asked for 20 burgers with 'KKK' branded into the top of the buns for a Klan barbecue?

Or if you like, a bun shop.

 

[untermensche]

He didn't consent to bake cakes for what he perceives to be mockeries of his religion's sacraments. You choosing to define someone as consenting to X because he consented to Y is not a substantive argument that he consents to X.


Nobody is forcing a McDonald's employee to fry burgers. The employee already consented to fry burgers. This doesn't stop you from claiming companies like McDonald's are dictatorships and complaining about their CEOs reducing people to tools. You have a blatant double standard.

What about if someone came in to McDonald's and asked for 20 burgers with 'KKK' branded into the top of the buns for a Klan barbecue?

Or if you like, a bun shop.

Are they branding buns for other customers?

If the KKK can legally meet they have to eat.

Feeding people is not saying you support everything they stand for.

It's never meant that.

 

[jab]

I couldn’t care less about your frivolous, erroneous, non-sequitor of “never been involved...in planning a wedding.”

And my reasoning in the post above wasn’t predicated upon the adjective “custom” in describing the word “cake.” You focus upon everything but the essential reasoning of my argument in the post above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do pardon me.

Your unsupported assertion that the seamstress who creates the dress isn't doing something that's equivalent to the baker who creates the cake simply left me at a loss for words....

It is the designer of the dress who (like an architect) may be considered an artist. In the case of a wedding dress that is custom made, the designing, or refining of the design, is done, I understand, with input from the person wearing the dress. Anyone else who works on a dress simply as a sempstress with no design input is an artisan, like the skilled labour that goes into realizing an architect's design
I am fortunate enough to live in a big urban area, and had my own gay wedding handled by a gay-friendly establishment. (We went for a cake that would taste good more than look decorative).

 

[jab]

Justice Kennedy, perhaps the single, most important jurist ever in advancing rights for gays and lesbians, in his colloquy decimated the same argument you espoused. “What they are” is their sexual orientation, herea same sex couple, but what they are doing here, choosing to get married, is not their sexual orientation but what they are doing.

Kennedy’s astute legal reasoning illuminated a point often neglected or poorly phrased. Under the CO law, the protected class of sexual orientation is “who” or “what” they are but the act of marriage isn’t sexual orientation, and therefore, Phillips didn’t violate the statute.

Kennedy’s inference, not mine. But his inference is both logical and rational.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a distinction with no difference.

He only objects to the activity because of the orientation. And for nothing else.

He objects to the "what" only because of the "who". And he only objects because of a serious delusion, not anything anyone should take seriously.

It is pure discrimination against the "who" and nothing else.

Despite the twisting that some try to do with it.

Justice Kennedy wasn't engaged in any "twisting." Justice Kennedy's distinction is certainly existential.

Their sexual orientation, which is protected under the Colorado law, is different from what they are doing, getting married. The law protects a characteristic associated with the person, in this instance sexual orientation, and does not protect something they wanted to do at the time, get married, or what they eventually did do, were married.

So, um, a commercial cakemaker who was racist and opposed to "miscegenation"on religious grounds could refuse to make an overtly interracial cake for an inter-racial wedding?