To be quite honest, I am quite apathetic on this issue. However, given the lack of arguments, (and my constant boredom,) I will vote "No" on this issue. My burden in this debate is to prove that two events, one involving a bakery that refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, and the other involving Sarah Huckabee Sanders being thrown out of a restaurant due to her political affiliation, are at least somewhat, or completely alike. Note the wording of the topic. Specifically, it states that the affirmative must uphold that the 2 events are nothing alike. So, if even a tad bit of similarity is evident, the negation wins. The Legal Information Institute gives us a brief summary of the case regarding a gay marriage cake:

"In July 2012, Respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Petitioner Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Colorado bakery, to request that its owner, Petitioner Jack Phillips, create a cake for their same-sex wedding. . Phillips declined their request, explaining that he would not make a custom wedding cake for them because of his Christian beliefs, but that he would be happy to sell them any other baked goods. . Phillips is a practicing Christian, and has been so for approximately 35 years. Craig’s mother called Phillips, and he informed her that Masterpiece Cakeshop did not create cakes for same-sex weddings due to his Christian beliefs and because the state of Colorado did not legalize same-sex marriage (1)."

The well publicized incident regarding Sarah Huckabee Sanders, according to her tweet, involved being told to leave the Red Hen restaurant due to her support of the President of the United States. She departed shortly afterwards politely (2).

To say that nothing is alike is a logical fallacy. For instance, both events involve the idea of the free market. Both businesses refused to serve their possible client due to deeply held beliefs that the business, or members of the business held true. Regardless of the details and the cake shop being perfectly okay with selling another product, that does not change the fact that a restriction on what could be purchased due to free expression of speech and the idea of the free market occurred in both events.

In conclusion, remember the burden that is set up because of the wording of the topic. I do not need to prove that either one is justified, or a bad precedent. I simply need to prove that the occurrences share similarities or "somewhat alike."

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/16-111

2.https://twitter.com/PressSecref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author