JP Schnapper-CasterasGeverifieerd account

.@AllianceDefends starred off and got lots of questions about premade cakes. J. Kennedy inquisitive why that made a difference

Justices Ginsburg & Kagan asked about florists, caterers, jewelers, hair stylists, makeup artists, tailors. Inconsistent answers: baker but not chef is 1A exempt

Justice Breyer brought up BBQ example early on (Ollie's) and laid out how this could affect every civil rights law in basic areas of life

J. Sotomayor highlighted Piggie Park and the First Amendment claims #SCOTUS rejected there. J. Kagan moved to interracial example

J. Gorsuch raised the issue of pretext -- that the message might be the superficial reason for denial

Next up was the U.S. Solicitor General: he repeatedly tried to describe the case as narrow and small but didn't get much traction

Notably, J. Kennedy asked if shops could put a sign in window saying "no cakes for gays." SG said sortof yes, if it was custom made cakes. Wouldn't that be an affront, AMK asked? SG pointed to dignity interests on both sides

J. Sotomayor asked about the denial of services in rural areas, including near military bases.

J. Ginsburg asked about gender. SG said everything but race falls in the same category. J. Kagan asked about other types of events -- this doesn't seem so small

J. Gorsuch asked for a general rule. J. Breyer worried about carving up lass and courting chaos.

I was struck by J. Kennedy's question about whether this would lead bakers nationwide to refuse service. Would the government "feel vindicated?" SG hedged

Next up was Colorado SG. Lots of time on hypo about Catholic Legal Services. J. Kennedy seemed irked at comments made by local Commissioner -- suggested Colorado was not tolerant or respectful when accomodation was possible

J. Alito was very active, including about whether same-sex marriage was legal at the time of this case (2012). Raised Kristallnacht scenario

J. Gorsuch raise (novel?) theory about whether the requirement that Mr. Phillips train staff on Colorado law was *itself* compelled speech. J. Kennedy seemed to buy in

Finally, @DavidColeACLU took the podium and was very strong: Everyone agrees the results here would be unacceptable if this case involved race -- so are we constitutionally relegating LGBT to second class status?

The Chief acknowledged the racial analogy was compelling, but pointed to Obergefell language on decent people.

There were yet more hypos about birthdays, words on a cake, hotel, banquet halls, KKK. J. Kennedy asked what if the baker had to physically participate?

Cole mentioned a possible revision to the Smith decision. J. Kennedy suggested the identify-based description was "too facile."

.@DavidColeACLU highlighted Piggie Park again: serving a Black customer in 1964 sent a message too. Yet #SCOTUS said the First Amendment claim was frivolous

Conversation and full circle to Catholic Legal Services examples and then religious universities (Bob Jones v. Hosanna Tabor)

Cole had powerful conclusion about "whites only" signs, "Muslims need not apply." The Chief indicated his time was up

On rebuttal, @AllianceDefends attorney had punchy points about unique expressive quality of cake. How the law also protects a lesbian who refuses to serve Westboro Baptist Church

But when lawyer tried to say opinions shift, but 1A does not -- J. Sotomayor stressed that opinions on interracial marriage did not shift on their own. (#SCOTUS / Loving mattered)

All told, there were just as many hypotheticals as I expected. Some cake jokes. But even more discussion of "the race analogy" -- which all justices seemed to acknowledge that was key

One way to duck the toughest issues here would be to remand the case for a rehearing if #SCOTUS is concerned a Commissioner was biased against Mr. Phillips. Avoid line-drawing (for now) altogether