P.S., I am not saying, at all, that one must have a law degree to discuss the law. I'll grant that Dr. Becker has a better understanding than most, and I'll further grant that the law is not this mysterious thing beyond the grasp of laymen.
My point is not that Dr. Becker is incapable of understanding the law, simply that he is demonstrating that he does not understand it. My first response to him pointed out the main reason why -- he misses basic rules of procedure and appellate practice that inform the discussion. Specifically, he doesn't understand that the case below was won on Motion for Summary Judgment, and in a Motion for Summary Judgment, all facts are taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this case, Masterpiece Cakeshop. Further, on appeal, the Court construes facts in a light most favorable to the appellant. And yet Dr. Becker is apparently only reading, and certainly only citing, the briefs and arguments of the party who does not get that deference.
This is properly basic stuff. Stuff that should not have to be explained to someone who is telling others to "go read up" on the facts and the law.