Christians Again Forced To Do Artwork For LGBT

[Daniel2]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Art does not lose it's First Amendment protection just because it is commercial in nature.

A singer who works on commission is free to turn down an offer to sing at Scientology events, even if that violates state bans on religious discrimination. 

 

I can’t comment on your hypothetical scenario, but am happy to clarify and emphasize that I’ve tried to ensure that everything I have said is not my opinion; I’ve tried to keep my comments within the actual rule of law in the United States based on the legal cases I’m quoting. I’m happy to correct anything I’ve said if you can provide the current applicable legal citations that prove otherwise.

 Whatever your opinion means as expressed in your first sentence above, if one wants to understand what it means in the context of the actual legal realities of our nation, one has to consider the bounds established by the rulings in this thread. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

52 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

It appears you may not have read this recent ruling... Arleena’s Flowers most definitely was chosen by an innocent buyer who sincerely wanted her business—the couple in question had used them for years for all their floral needs, and they weren’t even the ones who brought the lawsuit—it was the State of Washington.  Additionally, the case in the OP of this thread wasn’t and hasn’t even been sued by ANY same-sex couple; it’s the business owner preemptively seeking a license to deny services to same-sex couples.

None of the above paragraph is disputed by the defendants or platiffs in the cases being discussed.

With all of the above being undisputed facts, it’s puzzling you would say that “Not a single one of these cases were pulled out of the hate i.e. innocent buyer sincerely wanting a specific provider to assist them. They are targeted because of who they are and their personal standards,” since that is false with both the legal cases being discussed in this thread.

What evidence or references do you have, if any, that suggests these businesses were targeted by same-sex couples because of their beliefs? 

What appears to be a blithe dismissal of public accommodation laws ignores the harsh reality faced by minorities throughout history that prompted their creation over half a century ago, and isn’t contested insofar as it relates to discrimination based on religion, race, ableness, etc., and only has become problematic when religious conservatives are forced to treat patrons’ gender and/or sexual orientation the same way that they’re legally required to treat their patrons’ race, religion, or status as a member of any of the protected classes.

Nope, did not read it, but I have read a countless number of others. Since the time Rosa Parks was chosen to sit on the bus until today, groups are very savey in how they target businesses to either raise energy for a protest or hope to win a lawsuit. 

If you are a florist, I have a hard time finding a valid reason not to sell flowers to whoever enters your store. I realize there is some grey area to it, but it is the same as a restaurant that sells food off a menu. You sell those things and people buy it; I don't care what color, religion, gender, etc. you are, you deserve to be served. 

However, I definitely see a difference between those "things on the menu" and the areas where artistry comes into the picture. I believe a business should not be forced to work extra time for any reason regardless of what potential client is asking. Having been in court representing business interests, my advice to anyone is to avoid it at all costs. Do whatever it takes to never be forced to work when you don't want to and do what is necessary to avoid the legal system. 

[Anijen]

Here is what the SCOTUS remand and the subsequent Washington Supreme Court decision means in a nutshell:

We must remember that SCOTUS remanded this case because it was very similar to the Masterpiece decision and they did not want to waste such time in rehashing the same type arguments. The main reason SCOTUS decided in favor of Phillips in Masterpiece is because the Colorado Commission acted with "hostility" in their judgement against Mr. Phillips, his employees, and his bakery. Thus, SCOTUS remanded back to the Washington court to consider the Masterpiece reasoning [hostility against Phillips] if that reasoning occurred in the Arlene’s Flowers case.

Here, Washington Supreme Court's recent decision has adjudicated that the issue of "hostility" was not a factor in their case. You may agree or disagree. Obviously Arlene's Flowers will disagree and appeal it back to SCOTUS. This does not mean the Supreme Court will accept or decline (certiorari) to rehear the case, (I have no idea if it will get accepted). Generally, remanded cases are less likely to be reheard by the Supreme Court. However, if the case does get another chance, I assume one of the central issue that will be argued will be defining the "hostility" issue.

The Court will look to see if Washington court system's judgment and punishment were hostile, such as:

• Were fines against Arlene's excessive?
• Was mandatory retraining for employees ordered?
• Were mandatory unannounced searches of business records allowed?
• Was derogatory language used in the opinion against Arlene's used.

In the SCOTUS Masterpiece decision the above punishments and language was the hostility issue and that is what they addressed. The Court did not go further and speak on any First Amendment issues (that is why it was called a narrow judgment). The remand was basically the Court saying; before we look at it, did you guys treat it in the same manner as Masterpiece. The remand is not a victory for gay right advocates and it is certainly not a victory for the flower shop.

We will be seeing more like this on the state level, eventually the Supreme Court will take a case and address the issue of state discrimination statutes verse First Amendment conflicts..

[Calm]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

The artist who is into l'art pour l'art is a rare bird. Vincent would have loved to have sold his canvasses. Art is business.

As my post and Daniel's point outs, there is a difference between an artist who produces art and then tries to sell it and those who won't produce it without a buyer in mind.

And then there is the artist who won't even produce it unless paid for it up front, who follows the dictates of the client as much or more than their own preferences.  Florists for weddings are in this category.  The client chooses colors and types of flowers, tells them how much they want, the style.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Expressive conduct is generally considered to be protected by the First Amendment, even if the work in question can't be said to communicate any discernible message (e.g., a Jackson Pollock painting).

 

Could you please post a source for this as the legal commentary Daniel posted appears to view conduct differently.

Quote

But that does not end our inquiry. The Supreme Court has protected conduct as speech if two conditions are met: "[(1)] [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [(2)] in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."  Recent cases have characterized this as an inquiry into whether the conduct at issue was "inherently expressive."  

Stutzman's floral arrangements do not meet this definition. Certainly, she argues that she intends to communicate a message through her floral arrangements. But the major contest is over whether Stutzman's intended communications actually communicated something to the public at large—whether her conduct was "inherently expressive." And her actions in creating floral arrangements for wedding ceremonies do not satisfy this standard. 

The leading case on the "inherently expressive" standard is FAIR. The plaintiffs in FAIR—an association of law schools and faculty members—challenged the constitutionality of a law that required higher education institutions to provide military recruiters on campus with access to facilities and students that was at least equivalent to that of the most favorably treated nonmilitary recruiter.  The FAIR Court ruled that the law schools' conduct in denying military recruiters most-favorable-recruiter access to students was not protected by the First Amendment because it was not "inherently expressive." It explained that additional speech would be required for an outside observer to understand that the schools' reason for denying militaiy recruiters favorable access was to protest the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Calm

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

As my post and Daniel's point outs, there is a difference between an artist who produces art and then tries to sell it and those who won't produce it without a buyer in mind.

And then there is the artist who won't even produce it unless paid for it up front, who follows the dictates of the client as much or more than their own preferences.  Florists for weddings are in this category.  The client chooses colors and types of flowers, tells them how much they want, the style.

"Florists for weddings." And there's the rub, isn't it?

Redefine "wedding" just as Antiochus redefined "sacrifice on the altar in Herod's Temple" and you change in every way that's meaningful to the Christian what "wedding floral arrangement" means.

In any case, you've split a hair beyond what I can reasonably use in your novel taxonomy of "art" and "artist." And in doing so you put an awfully blunt and deadly weapon into the hands of malicious setup artists.

[Calm]

I don't think I am the one doing it, but the government.  I am trying to understand the legal argument, not defend it.

And I think it is very important to be accurate in what is being required, including how and why the artistic work is produced.

I don't think we should make decisions based purely on how vulnerable it makes us to "malicious setup artists", but more on what is right and fair...and then try to incorporate protections against maliciousness.

As for my preference, I would prefer business owners the right of refusal for any reason---even petty ones---if there were comparable services (in terms of type of product and quality) within a reasonable distance though I am not sure how that would be implemented.  I get why the government went this route though it creates its own set of problems.  

I have been a few times on the raw end of being refused service in Russia where the assistant refused to assist and just stared with a blank look or even disgust on their face.  It is a very creepy and disturbing experience.  I cannot imagine what it would be like if this was a common occurrence in my life.  I suspect I would isolate myself to a large degree to avoid the experience of wondering if the next person I encountered disliked me.  (And I get that there may not be dislike of the person but rather something they are doing, but if it happens enough it will feel like a personal dislike, imo.)

Edited June 8, 2019 by Calm

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Nope, did not read it, but I have read a countless number of others. Since the time Rosa Parks was chosen to sit on the bus until today, groups are very savey in how they target businesses to either raise energy for a protest or hope to win a lawsuit. 

I appreciate your candor in acknowledging you didn’t familiarize yourself with the two cases at hand in this thread before wrongly declaring that “Not a single one of these cases were pulled out of the hate i.e. innocent buyer sincerely wanting a specific provider to assist them.“

Clearly, these two cases certainly aren’t as you mistakenly claimed.

And in the case involving Arleena’s flowers, I’d very much liken the innocence of the parties denied equal services to be similar to that of Rosa Parks, insofar as the men innocently expected  the same services from a florist they had patronized and been friendly with for years.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Daniel2

[USU78]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think I am the one doing it, but the government.  I am trying to understand the legal argument, not defend it.

And I think it is very important to be accurate in what is being required, including how and why the artistic work is produced.

I don't think we should make decisions based purely on how vulnerable it makes us to "malicious setup artists", but more on what is right and fair...and then try to incorporate protections against maliciousness.

As for my preference, I would prefer business owners the right of refusal for any reason---even petty ones---if there were comparable services (in terms of type of product and quality) within a reasonable distance though I am not sure how that would be implemented.  I get why the government went this route though it creates its own set of problems.  

I have been a few times on the raw end of being refused service in Russia where the assistant refused to assist and just stared with a blank look or even disgust on their face.  It is a very creepy and disturbing experience.  I cannot imagine what it would be like if this was a common occurrence in my life.  I suspect I would isolate myself to a large degree to avoid the experience of wondering if the next person I encountered disliked me.  (And I get that there may not be dislike of the person but rather something they are doing, but if it happens enough it will feel like a personal dislike, imo.)

I remember when I was six years old when we moved from Vallejo to Brigham. I walked about a half mile to the principal park, which had a sizable fishing pond, as well as a baseball field with wooden bleachers. I saw a kid about my same age and spoke to him.

He answered, asking me if I were a Mormon. I said yes.

He responded, "I hate Mormons."

So ... no new friend that day and welcome to Utah.

Should I have sued for being denied acceptance in what I later discovered was antiMormon Central? Or are there other, more appropriate remedies?

[Storm Rider]

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I appreciate your candor in acknowledging you didn’t familiarize yourself with the two cases at hand in this thread before wrongly declaring that “Not a single one of these cases were pulled out of the hate i.e. innocent buyer sincerely wanting a specific provider to assist them.“

Clearly, these two cases certainly aren’t as you mistakenly claimed.

And in the case involving Arleena’s flowers, I’d very much liken the innocence of the parties denied equal services to be similar to that of Rosa Parks, insofar as the men innocently expected  the same services from a florist they had patronized and been friendly with for years.

Rosa Parks was not innocent - the entire thing was staged, planned, and she was chosen for the specific purpose of being the most appealing to the public. So if you are telling me that individuals were as innocent as Rosa Parks, what you are telling me is that they knew what they wanted and the business fell into the trap of dealing with a planned lawsuit. The business was targeted because they were Christian and these fellows wanted a lawsuit. 

You can drop the snotty act and just be honest. The vast majority of these lawsuits are not innocent! They are planned, designed, and planted to pursue a lawsuit against specific businesses to meet a social agenda. 

And, I really don't care what they folks say in a lawsuit - when it falls into these categories of lawsuits, history bears record that few, if any, are "innocent" unless we are all supposed to taken in by propaganda. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Daniel2]

12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rosa Parks was not innocent - the entire thing was staged, planned, and she was chosen for the specific purpose of being the most appealing to the public. So if you are telling me that individuals were as innocent as Rosa Parks, what you are telling me is that they knew what they wanted and the business fell into the trap of dealing with a planned lawsuit. The business was targeted because they were Christian and these fellows wanted a lawsuit. 

You can drop the snotty act and just be honest. The vast majority of these lawsuits are not innocent! They are planned, designed, and planted to pursue a lawsuit against specific businesses to meet a social agenda. 

And, I really don't care what they folks say in a lawsuit - when it falls into these categories of lawsuits, history bears record that few, if any, are "innocent" unless we are all supposed to taken in by propaganda. 

Hm. I appreciate that you’ve taught me something new.... Honestly, I hadn’t taken the time to study Rosa Parks’ story since what I learned in High School, so after this post, I did some research and found she clearly was more of a conscious activist that I was aware of (see: https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4125377/rosa-parks-60-years-video/%3famp=true). 

With my gratitude for teaching me something new, I now understand I was wrong and agree with you: according to Ms. Stuzman and the Ingersoles themselves, as both parties proffered to the court, the Ingersole’s actions absolutely are far more innocent/less calculated than Ms. Park’s were.

I’m not sure why you think I’m being “snotty.” 

I AM encouraging you to consider reading cases instead of relying on previous and potentially biased info before continuing to make unsubstantiated assertions about circumstances about which you haven’t taken the time or effort to read for yourself. 

That isn’t meant to be snotty—it’s simply a good practice and my own personal standard taught to me since I was a kid by both my parents and those responsible for my education. When I am introduced to a new idea or info about which I am unfamiliar, I find it best to acknowledge my mistake and be open to new info (case in point: what you’ve taught me about Rosa Parks, and my subsequent inquiry into information about her life and motives). 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

In any case, you've split a hair beyond what I can reasonably use in your novel taxonomy of "art" and "artist." And in doing so you put an awfully blunt and deadly weapon into the hands of malicious setup artists.

The irony of your stance is that public accommodation laws protect and preserve religious tolerance and freedom from discrimination in the public realm based on religion, just as they do for race, color, gender, national origin, etc.

For some strange reason, you see them as a threat when those same protections are afforded to sexual orientation as they are the other classes.  

Of course, maybe you object to their application to your religion as much as you do to gender or sexual orientation..... perhaps I just haven’t seen you be as vocally critical of the protections afforded to your religion. 

Either way, it’s clear that in so far as how those public accommodation protections have been applied to religion and race over the last several decades haven’t resulted in the religious or racial oppression you’re imagining and the fear mongering you seem to be hoping to inspire now that sexual orientation is being afforded the same equal protections.

After all, even Ms. Stutzman acknowledged that arranging and selling flowers for Islamic or atheist weddings did not violate her religious convictions, nor was it an endorsement on her part of said ideologies.

All other things being equal, government’s requirements holding business owners accountable to treat their diverse customers who’s religion, race, color, creed, sexual orientation, gender, or national origin are different from our own is not unconstitutional and is necessary to preserve equality and maintain freedom from oppression, and not diminish either. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I remember when I was six years old when we moved from Vallejo to Brigham. I walked about a half mile to the principal park, which had a sizable fishing pond, as well as a baseball field with wooden bleachers. I saw a kid about my same age and spoke to him.

He answered, asking me if I were a Mormon. I said yes.

He responded, "I hate Mormons."

So ... no new friend that day and welcome to Utah.

Should I have sued for being denied acceptance in what I later discovered was antiMormon Central? Or are there other, more appropriate remedies?

Was the boy offering a service to all comers?  Were you going to pay him?

And by doing so possibly dissuading someone who might be more open to actually serving all comers because they see the market as not large enough for another provider in the area?

If not, don't really see your example as relevant.  Customers are not asking business owners to be their friends in most cases.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

The business was targeted because they were Christian and these fellows wanted a lawsuit. 

Explain please how targeting occurs when people are already customers and therefore have an expectation of being served.

Or how a business that hasn't opened yet and is suing the city is actually being sued by "fellows [who] wanted a lawsuit".

And plenty of Christians are happy to serve SSMs, it is the subset of Christians who want little or nothing to do with SSM to avoid any appearance of supporting it that is at issue.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Calm

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Was the boy offering a service to all comers?  Were you going to pay him?

And by doing so possibly dissuading someone who might be more open to actually serving all comers because they see the market as not large enough for another provider in the area?

If not, don't really see your example as relevant.  Customers are not asking business owners to be their friends in most cases.

You're missing the point entirely. Providing an unnecessary but potent remedy to a subset of society based largely upon propaganda, junk social science, magical thinking, and anecdotes is the functional equivalent of mob rule.

Nobody ever proved with anything like competent evidence that there was anything approaching systematic unavailability of housing, employment, credit, education, or public services to homosexuals.

Nobody.

There was no need for me to be given a remedy for jerks teaching antiMormonism to their children, and there is no need for a remedy for failing to bake cakes or provide private wedding facilities or arrange flowers in violation if conscience.

None.

Edited June 9, 2019 by USU78

[Daniel2]

53 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're missing the point entirely. Providing an unnecessary but potent remedy to a subset of society based largely upon propaganda, junk social science, magical thinking, and anecdotes is the functional equivalent of mob rule.

Nobody ever proved with anything like competent evidence that there was anything approaching systematic unavailability of housing, employment, credit, education, or public services to homosexuals.

Nobody.

There was no need for me to be given a remedy for jerks teaching antiMormonism to their children, and there is no need for a remedy for failing to bake cakes or provide private wedding facilities or arrange flowers in violation if conscience.

None.

 While you are entirely entitled to your own opinion (as we all are), the courts and law disagree and the legal reality doesn't mesh with your view.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

You're missing the point entirely.

I think it is more I think your point isn't persuasive in the form you are making of it.

And given I tend to be more conservative rather than less when it comes to requiring people to serve others in a business---especially a luxury like flowers or anything having to do with weddings besides the ability to be married, you might want to reconsider your tactics because if anything you are persuading me away from your position, not towards it.

You aren't doing yourself any favor by using a bratty kid who has an irrational dislike to you as your equivalent of business owners refusing to cater SSMs.  It could be argued that an adult so driven by that kind of irrational dislike shouldn't be allowed any responsible position since they likely won't always act responsibly.

Quote

the functional equivalent of mob rule...

Mob rule is essentially a group of jerks/bratty kids in adult bodies letting loose with their irrational dislikes...you really appear to be arguing more for those you apparently see as your opponents than those you intend to support.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/23/2019 at 9:22 PM, Calm said:

I think we would be seeing tons more cases if it was "much of the gay rights movement".  Given the actual number, it seems more likely few are involved in such tactics, though more may be supportive of them verbally even if they wouldn't do it themselves.

I think it goes beyond a matter of gay rights. I think it’s part of a societal war on religion that has been going on since the 1960s when Madalyn Murray O’Hair got SCOTUS to expel religious expression from public education, effectively enshrining secularism as the state religion. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

19 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hm. I appreciate that you’ve taught me something new.... Honestly, I hadn’t taken the time to study Rosa Parks’ story since what I learned in High School, so after this post, I did some research and found she clearly was more of a conscious activist that I was aware of (see: https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4125377/rosa-parks-60-years-video/%3famp=true). 

With my gratitude for teaching me something new, I now understand I was wrong and agree with you: according to Ms. Stuzman and the Ingersoles themselves, as both parties proffered to the court, the Ingersole’s actions absolutely are far more innocent/less calculated than Ms. Park’s were.

I’m not sure why you think I’m being “snotty.” 

I AM encouraging you to consider reading cases instead of relying on previous and potentially biased info before continuing to make unsubstantiated assertions about circumstances about which you haven’t taken the time or effort to read for yourself. 

That isn’t meant to be snotty—it’s simply a good practice and my own personal standard taught to me since I was a kid by both my parents and those responsible for my education. When I am introduced to a new idea or info about which I am unfamiliar, I find it best to acknowledge my mistake and be open to new info (case in point: what you’ve taught me about Rosa Parks, and my subsequent inquiry into information about her life and motives). 

Dear Daniel, I was like you and was taught how wonderful Rosa Parks was and how incredibly courageous she was. I admired her and loved the whole story I was taught repeatedly in school. A good part of my suspicion of these types of lawsuits has to do with my feelings after I read about the real story of Rosa Parks. I suspect, in many ways, it resembles some of the feelings of some members when they read the difference between "faith-promoting stories" about Joseph Smith and the reality of Joseph Smith. 

I remain very suspicious of these lawsuits. I hope that there are more situations where innocent individual A is perplexed by actions of store owner and wants justice. The problem for me is when I want justice I just talk and clarify my perceptions with the store owner. If the owner still feels the way they do, I just take my business to one of the 50 other similar stores in the neighborhood and never shop at the offending store again. What I do not do, nor have I have I ever done, is immediately go and file a lawsuit against another person. That type of action is beyond my comprehension. Now, if all the stores acted the same way, then I would seek justice, maybe, through the courts. 

When I was a kid, i tried to play on a Christian baseball league. The problem was that I was a Mormon and I was not allowed to play by decree of the FIrst Baptist Church. My response was to not play with them and to never attend any of their ball games. The First Baptist preacher every year would still bring out his sermon on the evils of Mormonism and I would still shake my head at the stupidity of that pastor and the members of his church. I had a lot of friends who attended there. A few questioned me and we had a good conversation. Many never questioned me and believed the BS that guy foisted on the congregation. A lawsuit? No, that is not what I would do. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Storm Rider

[longview]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Explain please how targeting occurs when people are already customers and therefore have an expectation of being served.

Those people that sued Masterpiece Cakeshop (Colorado) probably were not regular customers.  I read somewhere they had gone to several bakeries seeking businesses that fit their profiles of "haters" so they can haul them into court and seriously bankrupt them (to make public examples of them).  This kind of thing has happened in several places including Seattle.

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it goes beyond a matter of gay rights. I think it’s part of a societal war on religion that has been going on since the 1960s when Madelyn Murray O’Hair got SCOTUS to expel religious expression from public education, effectively enshrining secularism as the state religion. 

Whoever is doing this has been at it for a long time in so many areas.  Since they could not get people to go along with passing the "appropriate" laws in the Legislature, they have gone to the next easier way which is to put their allies (radical judges) into various levels of courts systems.  Now they have frequently "created" new laws from the bench arguing about "penumbras" and other twisted reasonings.  All to bring about a new Collectivist Utopia.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Those people that sued Masterpiece Cakeshop (Colorado) probably were not regular customers.  I read somewhere they had gone to several bakeries seeking businesses that fit their profiles of "haters" so they can haul them into court and seriously bankrupt them (to make public examples of them).  This kind of thing has happened in several places including Seattle.

Whoever is doing this has been at it for a long time in so many areas.  Since they could not get people to go along with passing the "appropriate" laws in the Legislature, they have gone to the next easier way which is to put their allies (radical judges) into various levels of courts systems.  Now they have frequently "created" new laws from the bench arguing about "penumbras" and other twisted reasonings.  All to bring about a new Collectivist Utopia.

“Prenumbras”. What a crock of ... legalese. 

[The Nehor]

Creating intentional test cases by breaking a law in a specific way or creating a specific situation is now underhanded and dirty?

I have got some bad news for you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Those people that sued Masterpiece Cakeshop (Colorado) probably were not regular customers.

I was not referring to Masterpiece, but the two specific examples being discussed here.

I don't deny targeting occurs.  I am well aware it happens for a variety of reasons.  A friend was accidentally included in an email between two people intending to target her service (she was a photographer).  They had asked for info on her service through an email and then likely used "reply" rather than "forward" I am guessing.  They disappeared. (It was possibly a prank, but they didn't know her).

However, when people making an argument can't be bothered to get details right on people they are criticizing, for me their argument loses most credibility.  If anyone wants to be persuasive, don't be lazy and don't dehumanize the individuals you are criticizing by getting basic conduct wrong or using over the top drama.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Whoever is doing this has been at it for a long time in so many areas

"Whoever"..."they"?  So you are assuming someone is doing a highly coordinated longterm effort, but you don't know who they are?

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/7/2019 at 5:21 PM, Daniel2 said:

More news from the Washington Supreme Court’s new ruling after SCOTUS remanded it back to them for reconsideration in light of their ruling on Masterpiece Cake Shop:

First, the actual ruling is worth reading as it addresses many of the points of discussion on this board in recent years: 

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/916152.pdf

As reported in local Washington news: 

 

 

Quote

The decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding,” the court ruled. “Providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism.”

How about musicians being forced to sing or play at an event that celebrates something that conflicts with  their religious convictions?

Edited June 10, 2019 by Bernard Gui