masterpiececakeshop

Today's Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday!  We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments. We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter's privilege in Episode 200.  What's the other side of the argument?  Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter's ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential! After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos.  Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability. Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news.  What does this mean?  How has the Supreme Court's decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws?  Listen and find out! After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort trial.  Phew! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas (and Yvette) Take The Bar Exam #89 involving the appropriate damages for breach of contract. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

1. We discussed reporter's privilege in Episode 200; for the other side, check out this 2007 article by Randall Eliason on the BALCO scandal or this law review article in the American University Law Review.
2. Of course, we discussed asbestos in Episode 199, but we first broke down the law of negligence way back in Episode 29.  We cite to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and Sindell v. Abbott Labs, 607 P.2d 924 (1980).
3. Click here to read the new Masterpiece Cakeshop complaint.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Did the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling go far enough? The Supreme Court ruled on the Jack Phillips case last week. The ruling in favor of Jack was a win for religious freedom. If you haven't had the chance to talk with your family about this important case, we encourage you to start a conversation with your older kids and wife around the dinner table.

We've been listening to and reading many analyses of the ruling and a couple of things really stand out. First, don't believe the narrative that the ruling is as narrow as the media would like you to believe. The court goes out of its way to say that lower courts must respect American's rights for religious expression as much as they respect the rights of the LGBT community and others. Second, the court has set a precedent that a business owner can refuse service on the grounds that the service violates their religious beliefs. Though there are other similar cases in the queue, this is a very meaningful decision that will impact future rulings.

Let's be encouraged by the small steps in the right direction. This is an important decision that continues to protect the religious rights of Americans. We encourage you to continue praying for the Supreme Court and others that are leading and making decisions for our country.

Before our comments about the Supreme Court ruling, we speculate about how the meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un might go. You don't want to miss Micah's thought about how a thumb war might decide the outcome of this meeting...😜

Links and Recommendations:

Cake Bakers and the Rest of Us- The World and Everything in It

Jack Phillips' big win- The World and Everything in It

The Briefing: Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker, sends very clear signal that religious convictions of American people cannot be trampled upon- Albert Mohler

Alliance Defending Freedom

 

Join us for an early Rapid Response Friday, in which we break down the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  To tackle a topic this big, we needed a little extra help, so we brought back our favorite guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  But that's not all!  We recorded so much information that we decided to do a crossover episode with Serious Inquiries Only, so you can have over two hours of Andrew-on-Andrew (and Thomas!) action. We begin, however, on Yodel Mountain, with two pieces of news arising out of Paul Manafort's criminal trial.  Is Paulie M going to jail?  Did he engage in illegal witness tampering?  Did he back up his encrypted WhatsApp messages on an unencrypted iCloud?  Listen and find out!  We also delve into Manafort's response to the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents first discussed in Episode 168.  And, as long as we're yodeling, we might as well catch up on what's going on in the Summer Zervos lawsuit first discussed in Episode 176. After that, it's time to figure out exactly what's going on in Masterpiece Cakeshop.  Is this a narrow decision?  Is it a win for anti-LGBTQ forces?  Is it a nothing-burger?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #79 about the real property conveyance to a church.  Yes, it's more 13th-Century Saxony law!  And if you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew and Andrew continued to talk Masterpiece Cakeshop on Serious Inquiries Only, and Andrew was a guest talking the same thing on Episode 177 of The Scathing Atheist. Show Notes & Links

1. Here's the government's motion to revoke Paul Manafort's pretrial release.  Witness tampering is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
2. We first discussed the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents in Episode 168, and the Summer Zervos lawsuit back in Episode 176.
3. We've uploaded Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission so you can read it for yourself.
4. If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his  FIVE previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, Episode 131, and most recently, Episode 171.
5. Finally, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com