https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/04/masterpiece-cakeshop-ruling-supreme-court/

It seems that the crux of your argument depends on the legal system siding against the baker. If you look toward a more recent, similar case, you can see that the legal paradigm was overturned by the SCOTUS. This sets a precedent of businesses being able to sell to whoever they want. Thus, If businesses want to discriminate in selling their products based off of deeply held beliefs, they should be able to do so regardless if it pertains to political ideology or sexual orientation.

Oh, and I wouldn't put anyone's political affiliation on a pedestal. Both major parties in the US are corrupt, worthless facets of the government that do not represent anybody. Praising a political party is akin to expressing great enthusiasm toward taking cyanide. Sure, it may seem slightly better than the other political party (a noose) but the end result is the same, a large mess to clean up.

In conclusion, people can't have their wedding cake and eat it too. Either businesses can discriminate against deeply held beliefs (my position,) or they can't. While I think it horrible that Sanders was not served due to her opinions, and that businesses are only "fanning the flames" in angering others, under law it is similarly justified.

Hopefully this doesn't start a flame war.

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

To win the debate, one simply has to prove that either "Trump is the problem." While the debate has not been thoroughly defined, the clear intention is to determine if the current president or the Democrats are more to blame for the current issues within the United States. Because of the vagueness of the topic, no declaration could adequately be made. If the question is implying that wither Trump or the Democrats are the sole problem within American society, then the entire discussion is a non-starter. Failures could be attributed to both sides. For instance, one could easily make the argument that certain components of liberal policies, such as Obamacare, are burdensome and/or exacerbates the issue it is trying to fix. Liberal politicians, in some respects, could be criticized for allowing political correctness to become widespread. All the while, one could argue that our soft power has decreased due to problematic rhetoric from the executive branch. One could also argue that Trump's use of executive order, much like his predecessors, is problematic in its implementation. Regardless, the political establishment, Trump, and the US populous that elected incompetent people into public office can share the blame. Ergo, since there is no one cause of "the problem," the negation has to be favored because it fulfills the burden within this debate. Since there in no solitary cause of "the problem" within the US, and the affirmation's stance guarantees that one party is attributed to "the problem," (that being the democrats,) the logical answer has to be no.