Stop Misrepresenting Masterpiece Cakeshop, By David French

Published in the National Review on November 30, 2017, David French discusses the first amendment and non discriminatory laws on the issue of a cake shop owner refusing to make a cake for a gay couple in their celebration of marriage in the the article “Stop Misrepresenting Masterpiece Cakeshop”. French argues for Jack Phillips owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop and makes very valid points against the other side stating that refusing a certain type of service that sends a message is not discriminatory or unconstitutional. He further more explains the premise of the argument and clarifies key pieces of information. For example Jack Phillips did not refuse service to the couple, French clearly states he is on the constitutional and legal side.

French says multiple times that the case is not viewed by the constitutional and legal side of the opposing standpoint. The author states and supports with evidence later in the argument that the opposing side does not have as much power on the legal or constitutional side, and this is one of the reasons why Jack Phillips is being misrepresented. French show his frustration of the incorrect information in the case by saying “I’ll repeat this until I’m blue in the face. He serves gay customers.”(French,2017). In other words the author is truly trying to present the correct story. With French showing the search for the truth, he creates an idea that he is more creditable than the opposing side, however he makes a generalization that all of opposing side members are not looking at the facts. The author’s argument is weakened by this bias, and while he says that the other side distorts the facts, maybe he should stick to the facts and keep his distance from the generalizations in his

French quotes the “Obergefell opiniona” furthering his point and giving logical evidence behind his claims that he says are not present in Boylans writing in the “The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Is Not About Religious Freedom”(Boylan,2017), which he quotes to justify and show correct reasoning. This strong claim backed up with plenty of logical and reliant evidence and support makes French’s argument very persuading, however the evidence is very one-sided. Boylan does make a valid argument but with the French quoting a paragraph which he claims that is the only writing actually facing Phillips argument “she waves it away with a paragraph so specious that one has to read it to believe it:”(French,2017), and leaving most Boylans side out of it, the reader must realize that Boylans argument is much bigger than French portrays it to be. The reader may see French’s argument backed up with small fragments of Boylan’s writing which would be easy to critique, however French would have most likely assumed that his readers took the time to read Boylans writing which is linked in his article to seek full understanding. In this case if the reader were to read both articles the quotes that French did use become more conceptualized in the readers mind either furthering French’s ideas or