Comments 3

  1. From the email I sent to my summer class in Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought:

    “After slogging through Masterpiece Cakeshop, I’ve concluded that it does not serve well to illustrate the subjective turn in modern legal thought. Obergefell is a much better vehicle. The concurrences and dissent In Masterpiece do, however, turn in part on the question of ‘When is a cake just a cake?’. Or, ‘Is a cake/cupcake/cookie/… speech?’. Advocating for a more or less broad definition of a term is an important legal skill, especially in appellate litigation. While honing that skill is not among the objectives of this course the meta-question–is there a principled basis for deciding (as a judge) when to expand or contract meaning of an ambiguous term?–strikes me as worthy of at least some discussion. Thus, I want to spend a few minutes on two of the concurrences. The comments of several of the Colorado Civil Rights Commissioners made it ‘too easy’ for Justice Kennedy’s opinion but the dueling concurrences of Justices Kagan & Breyer, on the one hand, and Gorsuch & Alito, on the other, interest me. (I also find Justice Gorsuch’s use of the principle of double effect interesting but we won’t cover that doctrine until later in the semester.)”

    You’re welcome to join us. 😉

    1. Thanks for the invite, Scott. Alas but that I am rather heavily engaged for the next few weeks. I do miss some of the discussions and interactions that only happen in a law school class.

What are your thoughts about this topic?
We welcome your ideas and questions about the topics considered here. If you would like to receive others' comments and respond by email, please check the box below the comment form when you submit your own comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.