Christians Again Forced To Do Artwork For LGBT

[provoman]

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Using calligraphy instead of standard fonts doesn't seem to qualify automatically as art to me anymore than using cursive rather than block/print letters.

There is no universal definition of art. 

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, provoman said:

Should governments be permitted to violate the rights of individuals?

Does the government have the right to limit or take away the rights of it’s citizens?

Sometimes, yes. 

The phrase, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" refers to the boundary where one can act but has to stop when it approaches the boundary or rights of another. It is about the demarcation of liberties of an individual to the next individual. We each have our own personal space and there is a boundary.  

Rights are not “unlimited,” and in fact, boundaries are what actually maintain rights and freedoms.

Does the government have the right to take away the rights of parents who want to raise their children according to their religious beliefs? In most cases, no.... but yes, the government can take away parents’ access to their own children if the parents’ religious beliefs are negligent or abusive to their child (i.e. denying life-saving/sustaining medical care due to rejecting modern medicine in favor of Faith healing).

Can the government interfere with Churches’ religious rights to maintain or discipline their own adherents? In most cases, no.... but it can, if the Church either seeks to stone those that violate it’s laws (sabbath-breakers, blasphemers, sorcerers/witches, adulterers, sodomites, rebellious children, etc), or even privacy rights for those adherents who have left the Faith (such as being compelled to cease excommunication actions and remove members names upon written request). 

Can the government remove the Constitutionally-protected personal property rights of its citizens? In most cases, no.... but it did when it forceable dissolved the property rights of slave-owners...  or dissolved the legal ownership of wives previously held to be the property of their husbands... or the seizure of land governed by eminent domain.... some feel taxation falls into this category... and even today, citizens who violate laws are subject to search and seizure, etc.

Can the government compel speech or artistic speech, violating citizens’ freedoms of speech or belief...? In most cases where speech or art is personal, no, it can’t.... but the government can regulate businesses and enforce non-discrimination ordinances for those that choose to pursue any given line of work in the commercial realm. 

The concept of “rights” as initially and poetically but paradoxically listed in our Constitution as “inalienable” and “endowed upon us by our Creator” are neither fixed nor finite.  Even the creators of the Constitution itself failed to recognize or protect the subsequently established rights of women, children, slaves, Native Americans, African-Americans, immigrants, individuals with disabilities, and many other minorities that we all take for granted and none of us find controversial or unfounded today.  

As equal rights are recognized and granted on the basis of newly recognized protected classifications on the basis of Constitutional-mandated equality, the law changes and often requires new boundaries to be drawn.  These new boundaries equally applied to newly recognized classes can feel unfair to those who’ve been traditionally used to being able to discriminate, but are now forced to treat the newly recognized rights the same as they treat everyone else.

So goes the saying, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”  Your comment above mirrors the feeling of that loss of that privilege, as public businesses are forced to treat same-sex couples the same as they do same-race couples, [fill in the blank]-religious couples, atheist couples, interracial couples, intergenerational couples, inter-Faith couples, divorcee couples getting remarried, disabled couples, barren couples, elderly couples, etc. 

But the loss of your privilege is not the government “taking away” rights—it’s expanding the same equal rights you enjoy to those that have been previously denied them (in this case, to those of us who are gay and lesbian).

Edited January 25, 2019 by Daniel2

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

There is no universal definition of art. 

That is why I said "to me".

[Thinking]

22 hours ago, Anijen said:

The owners of a wedding invitation design business...

The wedding invitation design business is not a religion. It's a business.

[Daniel2]

Sorry to all for the obnoxiously large text size on my last post!—I wasn’t meaning to shout or get more attending... lol... I cut and pasted that from my iNotes on my phone, and my phone won’t let me resize it on the board. I’ll shrink it once I get to a computer..... 

[carbon dioxide]

The thing about art is the artist can decide whatever the art is.  So the artist can simply put on their artwork "Marriage is man and woman".  That is one way to deal with this.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Does the government have the right to limit or take away the rights of it’s citizens?

Sometimes, yes. 

The phrase, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" refers to the boundary where one can act but has to stop when it approaches the boundary or rights of another. It is about the demarcation of liberties of an individual to the next individual. We each have our own personal space and there is a boundary.  

Rights are not “unlimited,” and in fact, boundaries are what actually maintain rights and freedoms.

Does the government have the right to take away the rights of parents who want to raise their children according to their religious beliefs? In most cases, no.... but yes, the government can take away parents’ access to their own children if the parents’ religious beliefs are negligent or abusive to their child (i.e. denying life-saving/sustaining medical care due to rejecting modern medicine in favor of Faith healing).

Can the government interfere with Churches’ religious rights to maintain or discipline their own adherents? In most cases, no.... but it can, if the Church either seeks to stone those that violate it’s laws (sabbath-breakers, blasphemers, sorcerers/witches, adulterers, sodomites, rebellious children, etc), or even privacy rights for those adherents who have left the Faith (such as being compelled to cease excommunication actions and remove members names upon written request). 

Can the government remove the Constitutionally-protected personal property rights of its citizens? In most cases, no.... but it did when it forceable dissolved the property rights of slave-owners...  or dissolved the legal ownership of wives previously held to be the property of their husbands... or the seizure of land governed by eminent domain.... some feel taxation falls into this category... and even today, citizens who violate laws are subject to search and seizure, etc.

Can the government compel speech or artistic speech, violating citizens’ freedoms of speech or belief...? In most cases where speech or art is personal, no, it can’t.... but the government can regulate businesses and enforce non-discrimination ordinances for those that choose to pursue any given line of work in the commercial realm. 

The concept of “rights” as initially and poetically but paradoxically listed in our Constitution as “inalienable” and “endowed upon us by our Creator” are neither fixed nor finite.  Even the creators of the Constitution itself failed to recognize or protect the subsequently established rights of women, children, slaves, Native Americans, African-Americans, immigrants, individuals with disabilities, and many other minorities that we all take for granted and none of us find controversial or unfounded today.  

As equal rights are recognized and granted on the basis of newly recognized protected classifications on the basis of Constitutional-mandated equality, the law changes and often requires new boundaries to be drawn.  These new boundaries equally applied to newly recognized classes can feel unfair to those who’ve been traditionally used to being able to discriminate, but are now forced to treat the newly recognized rights the same as they treat everyone else.

So goes the saying, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”  Your comment above mirrors the feeling of that loss of that privilege, as public businesses are forced to treat same-sex couples the same as they do same-race couples, [fill in the blank]-religious couples, atheist couples, interracial couples, intergenerational couples, inter-Faith couples, divorcee couples getting remarried, disabled couples, barren couples, elderly couples, etc. 

But the loss of your privilege is not the government “taking away” rights—it’s expanding the same equal rights you enjoy to those that have been previously denied them (in this case, to those of us who are gay and lesbian).

It may surprise you, but I largely agree with you on this. I do think there is room for disagreement and discussion about the particulars of how competing rights are negotiated. For example, I seem to remember that you didn't have any problem with the Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner making the comments about Phillip's religion and generally defended him. I think targeting him, especially recently, goes too far beyond attempting to prevent discrimination. 

I think there are lots better ways for someone who may conscientiously object to participating in a particular behavior to act than simply refuse service.  But just like draft laws have exceptions for conscientious objectors, and the Amish don't have to pay Social Security Taxes, I just think that we can also find ways to accommodate sincere religious beliefs without compromising principles of non-discrimination.  

I admit I haven't done much research into the Missouri case, but my feeling is that even if the Court technically interpreted the law correctly, such discrimination should be illegal. 

[provoman]

has any read the Az State laws being used to defend the business owners?

Edited January 25, 2019 by provoman

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

has any read the Az State laws being used to defend the business owners?

The business owners are the aggressors not the defenders.

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The business owners are the aggressors not the defenders.

The business owners have cited State Law or  Az State Constitution as the basis that that the Phoenix city ordinance violates the business owners rights.

[california boy]

The City of Phoenix made the following statement

 

 

Quote

 

“Phoenix’s non-discrimination ordinance is about access to goods and services on equal terms. The ordinance does not tell businesses what to write, what to think, or what to believe. The city’s legal team made this point to the Arizona Supreme Court. Four judges have already agreed that businesses in Phoenix must be open to everyone.

Those legal rulings protect all and confirm that everyone should be treated fairly and equally regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, or disability. The city of Phoenix will continue to observe these shared community values, allowing the non-discrimination ordinance to protect and respect the rights of all residents.”

Eric Fraser, an assistant Phoenix city attorney, argued that Duka and Koski, are not being asked to celebrate anyone’s wedding. “They are in the business of designing wedding invitations and similar items he told Tuscon. “And the Phoenix anti-discrimination ordinance they are challenging simply says if you provide a service to the public, you can’t refuse that service to someone based solely on sexual orientation.”

“Once Brush & Nib has decided to offer a particular type of invitation to the general public, the one thing it can’t do is when somebody calls making the request, they can’t have the sole test of whether they’re going to make the invitation be, ‘What sex is your spouse?’ or ‘What sex is your fiancé?’” Fraser told the court.

“And if that’s the one thing they need to know before they decide whether to make the invitation or not, then it’s not about the message,” he continued. “That’s about who the person is.”

The Phoenix ordinance makes it a crime to discriminate based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

 

 

[Anijen]

On 1/24/2019 at 6:56 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

We know that the court doesn't agree with you when it comes to the issue of employees versus employers. That is, religious activity in the context of one's employment against the wishes of the employer isn't protected. 

Employer v. Employee is not the issue in this topic. I said nothing of employee verse employers and I agree with SCOTUS in the example you gave. I do not see how the Court disagrees with me when I am speaking of a state agency (e.g. Colorado Commission) v. a private citizen. A high school coach who worked for a public school system (a state agency) is a state employee and is mandated by the rules of his employer. A coach who is employed by a private school (not a state agency) can pray without being fired. In fact, SCOTUS does agree with me because my argument comes almost directly from the decision.

 

Quote

And in connection with this, we know that the government can in fact compel speech (contrary to Provoman's assertion). While this is particularly true in the case of individuals who are employed as civil servants whose personal beliefs are largely irrelevant to the job they are required to perform, it is also true of corporations (who are regularly compelled to create speech). For example, the Surgeon General warnings on tobacco products are a recognized form of compelled speech. Teachers in particular, are considered by the courts as "speech for hire" which means that their students have considerably more free speech rights than they do within the formal context of their employment. This is well established in case law.

The government cannot compel speech of a private person, they quasi can for a state or federal employee. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. It limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government's approved messages. Your examples of are employees of a government agency (i.e. Civil Service) not of private citizens. Furthermore, your example of tobacco products fall under commercial speech in which there are more limitations and governmental regulations which require disclosures.

Instead of a public school employee (coach getting fired for praying as you posted), let's use a public school student. The government cannot compel the speech of the student by requiring them to salute the flag. A student does not have to risk expulsion or criminal truancy if they do not salute the flag (stand and hold their hand to their heart). This protection is while the student is in a state run public school. Citizens have even stronger constitutional protections in a private entity.

Another example; we all have a fundamental right to travel (here in the US), what happens when a Jehovah Witness needs to drive everyday but the state slogan on his licence plates offends his religious beliefs? So, the Jehovah Witness takes tin snips and cuts out the state logo off his licence plate. He is then ticket multiple times for either the obstruction or covering the slogan. In Wooley v. Maynard, the Supreme Court ruled for the Jehovah Witness, declaring the First Amendment protected individuals against compelled speech.

Justice Jackson in a famous SCOTUS decision said; "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to say by word or act their faith therein." Emphasis mine.

The Supreme Court has further expanded the scope of protection against compelled speech in Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston. It ruled that no government officials could not force parade organizers to accept gay and lesbian group and its message as part of its event. To do so would infringe on the private groups autonomy and right to disseminate its own messages. When Phillips said he would sell the gay couple any other pastry, but not the wedding cake he was protected (via the Hurley decision) because it would go against his beliefs and the message could not be forced.   

 

Quote

Likewise, at a wedding (or even for the recipients of a wedding invitation), no one who gets one, or goes to the wedding, cares at all about any speech that might be coming from the artist who designs the cake, or the invitation. It isn't recognized by anyone else as speech on the part of the creator. It is a speech by the person who has purchased it. This is the issue with speech for hire.

I agree, but here, you are coming from the perspective of the person receiving the cake, the person who was  given the invitation, the person who purchased it etc.. However, the courts look at the person saying it, writing it, baking it etc. and the courts have over and over again ruled that no government or its  agent can compel that speech. Even if, as you wrote if the person receiving the product does not recognize it as speech.

 

Quote

We can see the normalcy in this, perhaps, from that well known painting that was requested by the LDS Church, where the Church required the artists to go back and remove all the angel wings. Was the Church refusing to let the artist's speech stand? Or was the painting really a speech act produced by the Church, employing the artist in the process?

Again, this is a contract between non-state actors, one a church the other an artist.

 

Quote

The wedding cake case in Colorado simply avoided this question. SCOTUS made a very narrow ruling that had little to do with the question of what constituted speech.

SCOTUS, in the Masterpiece decision, did not avoid the question of what constituted speech because it did not need to. What constitutes speech has been decided in many prior cases mainly Hurley and others.  You are looking for judicial dictum, not needed.

 

Quote

Telescope Media Group vs Kevin Lindsey (the Minnesota case with the wedding video producer) tackles this head on - since part of the original decision involved this specific issue. And this makes it much more likely to become an issue for SCOTUS should it decide to eventually take the case on appeal.

It will be interesting for certain. The reason I started this topic was to see what others thought if this was the new trend, that being, to fight religious beliefs in this manner by using city discrimination ordinances against 1st Amendment right against compelled speech (IOW one constitutional protection v. another constitutional protection). The main issue I am addressing is the government or its agent can they compel speech?  I know many on this board have opinions on "but it is just a cake, just an invitation," etc., The Court is not going to decide on what is art. However, they have ruled that compelled speech (does not matter if one thinks it is art or not), it is a constitutional violation.

 

Quote

The original decision clearly identified the video as speech-for-hire. Here are a few statements from the original District Court decision which is currently being appealed:

If it goes to the Supreme Court they will look at the case de novo (with fresh eyes), starting new and the lower court will receive its deference, but will not influence the SCOTUS decision.

 

Quote

In other words, if the product is speech-for-hire, then the producer or the "conduit" cannot themselves claim that it is protected - that can only be done by the client who purchased it.

Movie producers, authors,  song writers might disagree with you, but I see your point and it will digress from this discussion on compelled speech. 

 

Quote

It is clear (at least to me) that the religious right is looking for a way to create a new application of free speech principles - not to to use an existing and long-standing principle to defend themselves. They want to create a new right to discriminate.

Once again you are looking at it from only one perspective. There have always been a right for limited discrimination decided by the Supreme Court (e.g. age, alien legality, race for diverse purposes, etc.). There have been cases were a black businessman did not have to serve a white customer, schools can discriminate against asians and whites (for a more diverse student body),   all upheld by SCOTUS. It has never been about "a new right to discriminate." Although that is the narrative being used currently. It has ALWAYS been about religious beliefs and a government compelling their speech. the phrase; "a new right to discriminate" is a low down, dirty trick to change the focus from a compelled speech issue to a racial one. This tactic is ugly because it implies prejudice on its face, not too mention its probative value, not only confuses the issue, but will turn others against the defendant (it is highly prejudicial in its effect). It is much more complicated than that. Besides in all the cases of this nature that I have studied, they [defendants] all would do business with their customers, what they would not do is be forced to do something they feel goes against their beliefs. Besides if one uses "a new right to discriminate" argument, one could say it is the gay men who have found a new way/right to discriminate against a Christians First Amendment right to worship how they want. 

 

Quote

This question of speech-for-hire is absolutely essential. Because it becomes the core of this argument.

I disagree. It is your opinion and desire to make it the core of the argument. The gateway issue is compelled speech.

 

Quote

Taken from a religious perspective, I know of no religion that makes it a sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or to produce a marriage invitation to a gay wedding.

I agree

 

Quote

There is a certain amount of absurdity in the idea that somehow, this forces people to act in a way that is contrary to their religious beliefs.

It is not the idea that forces, but a government regulation that criminalizes a person if they do not act in a prescribed manner, a manner (even if viewed absurd) is forced upon them. I find it a little absurd as well.  I cannot condone the forced requirement to make a person give service that they do not want to give (no matter how absurd one may feel their religious belief is). I find that a person who brings up slavery as an argument ironic that they are alright with forced services of another human.

 

Quote

And to carry this further, think of the implication of making videographers, and wedding invitations the speech of the artist. They then become liable for any suits arising from the message,

This is not new. people have always been liable for their speech. Defamation suits have grounded rules, which the elements have been around for a long time.

 

Quote

and they release the client who purchased it from any liability rising from the message. That too is an absolute absurdity.

This is not entirely correct. You are assuming there is a legal a release from the client. Generally, the client is usually released of liability (think of false news story), people are generally not liable. However, depending on the type of speech (e.g. false light) or how the information was obtained and if maliciously used they can be liable.

 

Quote

I expect that the courts will eventually define things like the cake, and the wedding invitation as speech for hire, and this will have an impact on the decision to define this as not protected.

I agree that the Court will eventually define the issues with greater clarity.  However. if they decide toward identifying it as speech for hire then they have to have a really good reason to force people by mandating action (giving service) they do not want to do. I believe the country will see that as too close to slavery. I tend to think the issue will be decided not on commercial speech (speech for hire) but on the issue of compelled speech.

Ben, thank you very much for your erudite, civil dialogue with me. Thank you for increasing my perspective and thank you for being you.

[nuclearfuels]

On 1/23/2019 at 11:18 PM, Anijen said:

Will members of the  LDS church be the next targets?

The owners of a wedding invitation design business goes against a city ordinance that protect's LGBTQ couples from discrimination, currently on the Arizona Supreme Court docket, (see here).  It appears the new way to fight First Amendment religious freedom rights is to have a city ordinance that fights discrimination.This new legal warfare is just the beginning. What are your thoughts? Do you feel that it is legally justified to diminish one constitutional right (First Amendment on religion and freedom of speech) to show a preference to another constitutional right (allowing religious discrimination)? 

I believe that much of the gay rights movement have become legal bullies and over time and experience they are finding ways to diminish long held First Amendment rights of religion and rights of freedom of speech, which protects against compelled speech too. One of the Colorado Commissioners described Christianity (our faith) as; “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” 

I have written about this in the past here on these boards and was lambasted, implicated that I am a racist, homophobe, and bigot. I was even compared to a privileged white man who probably wishes there still was slavery. Additionally it took less than one page before I was by implication compared to hitler and the holocaust. Which, ironically, that same Colorado Commissioner said about Phillips in his Masterpiece Cake business when he compared Phillips’ "invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

 

Signs of the times.

I'm just waiting for the time when state and national govts make their hatred of Christianity more prominent

Seems like that would encourage like-minded people to gather in certain areas

Then, the Second Coming.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Signs of the times.

I'm just waiting for the time when state and national govts make their hatred of Christianity more prominent

Seems like that would encourage like-minded people to gather in certain areas

Then, the Second Coming.

It is amusing to me that people pretend this is Second Coming level persecution. I have listened to the stories of concentration camp survivors and Arab Christians that had to flee their country because of rumors that Christians were burning the Koran nearby. Even LDS history has some stories of real persecution. But a civil dispute over wedding invitations initiated by Christians.....this is the sign of the End of Days........

[california boy]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is amusing to me that people pretend this is Second Coming level persecution. I have listened to the stories of concentration camp survivors and Arab Christians that had to flee their country because of rumors that Christians were burning the Koran nearby. Even LDS history has some stories of real persecution. But a civil dispute over wedding invitations initiated by Christians.....this is the sign of the End of Days........

The Church members should be thanking the gay community for single handly bringing about the second coming.  A feat many have tried to do before, but only the gays are able to deliver.  Lots of glitter and streamers. Disco balls, not bombs. There is a group of us that are trying to talk Christ into wearing gold lame studded with rhinestones instead of boring white.  Just wait, it will be fabulous.

[Daniel2]

Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear the latest appeal involving religious liberty invocations of the first amendment vs gender/sexual orientation discrimination:

Supreme Court rebuffs Hawaii B&B seeking to deny boarding to same-sex couples

The Supreme Court has refused to hear case of a Hawaii B&B seeking to refuse to same-sex couples. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it has refused to hear the case of a Hawaii bed and breakfast that sought to refuse service to same-sex couples out of religious objections.

The high court indicated it had denied certiorari to Aloha Bed & Breakfast, or refused to take up its case, in an order list Monday reflecting decisions justices made during a conference on Friday.

The denial of certiorari effectively means the end to the lawsuit against Aloha Bed & Breakfast, which was found to have violated Hawaii civil rights laws for refusing boarding to Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford in 2007.

The initial lawsuit, Aloha Bed & Breakfast v. Dianne Cervelli, was filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of the same-sex couple after they were denied service. The co-plaintiff in the case was the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Peter Renn, counsel for Lambda Legal’s Western Regional Office, said the denial of certiorari affirms non-discrimination laws for LGBT people in face of objections based on “religious freedom” claims.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court ruling stand reaffirms that the freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to violate nondiscrimination laws that protect all individuals from harm, whether on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation,” Renn said. “The Supreme Court declined to consider carving out an exception from this basic principle when a business discriminates based on the sexual orientation of its customers. LGBT people deserve an equal right to go about their everyday life without the fear that discrimination waits for them around the corner.”

According to the complaint, after Cerveilli emailed Phyllis Young, the owner of the Hawaii B&B about a potential room, she was initially told there was an availability. When Cervelli disclosed she was bringing a same-sex partner, Young replied, “Are you both lesbians?” The owner then refused boarding, saying she was uncomfortable with having lesbians in her home. 

The Hawaii First Circuit Court ruled for the same-sex couple in April 2013. Although Aloha B&B appealed to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, that court affirmed the lower court ruling. Last year, the Hawaii Supreme Court refused to hear that decision.

But the Aloha Bed & Breakfast wasn’t done. Represented by the anti-LGBT legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, the businesses filed in October 2018 a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, citing a First Amendment right to refuse service to same-sex couples for religious reasons.

“The Commission officially labeled her religious beliefs unlawful ‘discrimination’ despite the fact that Mrs. Young declines to rent bedrooms in her family home to any romantic partners other than a married man and women — Hawaii’s only recognized form of marriage in 2007,” the petition says. “For this ‘crime’ of being a faithful Catholic, the Commission sought punitive damages and statutory penalties that could cause Mrs. Young to lose her home.”

ADF also asserted Aloha Bed & Breakfast’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated because the establishment, which rents out 1-3 rooms in the owner’s personal home, wasn’t given fair notice Hawaii civil rights law would apply to her.

In a filing last month responding to the ADF petition, Lambda Legal disputed Aloha Bed & Breakfast suffered harm under the First Amendment.

“Aloha B&B’s accusation that the Commission engaged in a ten-year campaign of religious hostility is a work of pure fiction,” the filing says. “To begin, it completely ignores that it was Ms. Cervelli and Ms. Bufford — private parties — who suffered discrimination by Aloha B&B and thereafter filed this civil action. And, unlike the authority relied upon by Aloha B&B, it was a circuit court — not the Commission — that found Aloha B&B liable for violating the public accommodations law.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari to Aloha Bed & Breakfast comes nearly a year after justices issued a narrow ruling for Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who was penalized under Colorado law for refusing service to a same-sex couple. Although the Supreme Court didn’t issue a First Amendment right to discriminate as Phillips requested, the court ruled for baker based on the narrow facts of the case, finding anti-religion bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

[carbon dioxide]

The big problem with forcing an artist or anyone else to work on a project against their will is that in many cases, the person being forces will retaliate in some way.  Nobody likes to be told what do to especially if the government is doing it.  The person might simply decide to put a minimal effort into the work they are being forced to do.  They might decide, in this case the artist to take their artistic talents and do the exact opposite of what is intended.  An artist might put a bunch of anti-gay stuff in the project they are being forced to do.  They can just say its part of the art they are creating.   The best thing to do is find people who actually want to do the work being asked.  It is no different than going out to dinner and wanting good service.  Insulting the waiter ahead of time probably is not going to result in high quality service.   If the waiter has to serve you, he will give you the bare bones service and nothing more.

[Thinking]

On 1/23/2019 at 9:18 PM, Anijen said:

I believe that much of the gay rights movement have become legal bullies and over time and experience they are finding ways to diminish long held First Amendment rights of religion and rights of freedom of speech, which protects against compelled speech too.

Or there are enough gay couples who are just looking for wedding professionals to hire. Certainly they will by chance enter the establishments of some wedding professionals who happen to be opposed to gay marriage.

[Anijen]

23 hours ago, Thinking said:

Or there are enough gay couples who are just looking for wedding professionals to hire. Certainly they will by chance enter the establishments of some wedding professionals who happen to be opposed to gay marriage.

With the Masterpiece Supreme Court case, it came out in discovery that the couple was actually looking for a baker who would turn their business away (not baking their wedding cake).  They had other bakers willing to bake their wedding cake. Thus, the couple was looking for litigation, someone to sue.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

With the Masterpiece Supreme Court case, it came out in discovery that the couple was actually looking for a baker who would turn their business away (not baking their wedding cake).  They had other bakers willing to bake their wedding cake. Thus, the couple was looking for litigation, someone to sue.

Well that definitely changes the narrative. I had not heard this before.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

With the Masterpiece Supreme Court case, it came out in discovery that the couple was actually looking for a baker who would turn their business away (not baking their wedding cake).  They had other bakers willing to bake their wedding cake. Thus, the couple was looking for litigation, someone to sue.

Yep, and the bakers jumped on board that gravy train. Both sides made out like bandits from donations so neither side was truly a victim.

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, Anijen said:

With the Masterpiece Supreme Court case, it came out in discovery that the couple was actually looking for a baker who would turn their business away (not baking their wedding cake).  They had other bakers willing to bake their wedding cake. Thus, the couple was looking for litigation, someone to sue.

Can you please provide a link to your source(s) showing that the court’s discovery found out that “the couple was actually looking for a baker would turn their business away”....?

[Daniel2]

On 3/18/2019 at 8:23 PM, carbon dioxide said:

The big problem with forcing an artist or anyone else to work on a project against their will is that in many cases, the person being forces will retaliate in some way.  Nobody likes to be told what do to especially if the government is doing it.  The person might simply decide to put a minimal effort into the work they are being forced to do.  They might decide, in this case the artist to take their artistic talents and do the exact opposite of what is intended.  An artist might put a bunch of anti-gay stuff in the project they are being forced to do.  They can just say its part of the art they are creating.   The best thing to do is find people who actually want to do the work being asked.  It is no different than going out to dinner and wanting good service.  Insulting the waiter ahead of time probably is not going to result in high quality service.   If the waiter has to serve you, he will give you the bare bones service and nothing more.

The big problem with (not to mention irony of) your point above is that when upholding and enforcing civil rights and public accommodation laws, the government did indeed force restaurant- and diner-owners to serve customers who went out to dinner (and all other times of day) that the owners did not want to serve (see here).  Business owners who serve protected classes of patrons differently than the rest of their patrons (such as offering sub-par service out of any type of retaliation) are also in violation of the law. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Daniel2

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

The big problem with (not to mention irony of) your point above is that when upholding and enforcing civil rights and public accommodation laws, the government did indeed force restaurant- and diner-owners to serve customers who went out to dinner (and all other times of day) that the owners did not want to serve (see here).  Business owners who serve protected classes of patrons differently than the rest of their patrons (such as offering sub-par service out of any type of retaliation) are also in violation of the law. 

Ok but my point is that even if you force someone to work or do something against their will, the government can't force them to do their best.   They can just show up and to the barest of minimums in terms of service.  Perhaps even give them cold steak.  I would argue that is better not to force somebody to do something against their will if the are wanting their work or service.  One is bound to get better results. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[Gray]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Ok but my point is that even if you force someone to work or do something against their will, the government can't force them to do their best.   They can just show up and to the barest of minimums in terms of service.  Perhaps even give them cold steak.  I would argue that is better not to force somebody to do something against their will if the are wanting their work or service.  One is bound to get better results. 

We already tried that. The results were much worse.