Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anijen

Christians Again Forced To Do Artwork For LGBT

Recommended Posts

On 2/17/2019 at 7:37 PM, 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.

 

The christians like the ones being discussed seem to be doing a pretty good job all by themselves 

And anyway, you should be happy that the gay community is doing its part in bringing the Second Comming.  We are monsters evidently.

http://www.towleroad.com/2019/03/pat-robertson-gay/

 

Sadly, with each one of these kinds of statements, more and more walk away from organized religion.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, california boy said:

The christians like the ones being discussed seem to be doing a pretty good job all by themselves 

And anyway, you should be happy that the gay community is doing its part in bringing the Second Comming.  We are monsters evidently.

http://www.towleroad.com/2019/03/pat-robertson-gay/

 

Sadly, with each one of these kinds of statements, more and more walk away from organized religion.

 

Such beautiful tactics you use:

Cite an extremist from your opponent's side.

Claim said extremist represents all of your opponent's side.

Virtue signal 

Exit stage left

-

If it would take a redefinition of what constitutes the restored gospel to keep those you cite from walking away, they would infact then belong to an altogether different organization...without ever having walked away

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/22/2019 at 8:54 AM, nuclearfuels said:

Such beautiful tactics you use:

Cite an extremist from your opponent's side.

Claim said extremist represents all of your opponent's side.

Virtue signal 

Exit stage left

-

If it would take a redefinition of what constitutes the restored gospel to keep those you cite from walking away, they would infact then belong to an altogether different organization...without ever having walked away

When I reread this thread, I was touched by how many faithful members of the church were pushing back against these so called christians that use their religion more as a weapon than to lead others to Christ.  That is very encouraging.  It made me proud that I was once a member of that same church.  The more that other Christians condemn such discrimination, and in my opinion because it does go against the teachings and example of Christ, the more it will draw others towards Christ, rather than pushing them away.  When that message gets sent loud and clear, then I believe that many will stop turning away from religion.  Letting the extreme control the narative of what it means to be a Christian is destructive to religion.  Christians need to regain the narative of love and caring especially for those they think are sinning and condemning those that pervert the message of Christ.

This is not about extremeness on either side.  This is about all the rest of us speaking out and condemning such extremeism.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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
 
Washington Supreme Court rules once more against Richland florist who refused flowers for same-sex wedding
 
Originally published June 6, 2019 at 12:05 pm Updated June 6, 2019 at 9:34 pm 
 
Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, shown in this 2013 file photo, has been the center of a court case alleging the florist broke the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing on religious grounds to provide flowers for the wedding of a gay couple. (Bob Brawdy / The Associated Press)
 
Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, shown in this 2013 file photo, has been the center of a court case alleging the florist broke the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing on religious grounds to provide flowers for the wedding of a gay couple. (Bob Brawdy / The Associated Press) 
 
Seattle Times staff reporter
 
Washington’s court system did not act with religious animus when it ruled that a Richland florist broke the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding, a unanimous Washington Supreme Court said on Thursday.
 
The state Supreme Court reaffirmed a ruling it made in 2017 , after the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to Washington to determine whether it had been handled with “religious neutrality,” as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in favor of a Colorado bakery that refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But it was a narrow ruling , justified on the grounds that the Colorado agency that sanctioned the bakery had “some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility” toward the sincere religious beliefs of the bakery owner.
 
The state Supreme Court said that was not the case here in Washington.
 
“We are confident that the courts resolved this dispute with tolerance,” Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote in the unanimous opinion . “The state of Washington bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
 
The case began in 2013, when Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, refused to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding of Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed.
 
State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer-protection lawsuit against the florist for refusing to serve the couple, alleging that Stutzman was violating Washington’s law against discrimination.
 
“Washington state law protects same-sex couples from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, the same way it protects Washingtonians from discrimination based on their religion, veteran or military status, disability, race and other protected classes,” Ferguson said Thursday.
 
Stutzman has been represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national Christian nonprofit.
 
The group said Thursday that Stutzman would again appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and was soliciting donations for the case on the homepage of its website.
 
“Barronelle serves all customers; she simply declines to celebrate or participate in sacred events that violate her deeply held beliefs,” said John Bursch, vice president of appellate advocacy for the group. “Despite that, the state of Washington has been openly hostile toward Barronelle’s religious beliefs about marriage, and now the Washington Supreme Court has given the state a pass.”
 
Stutzman had argued that forcing her to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding violated her religious beliefs and was tantamount to “compelled speech” because it forced her to endorse same-sex marriage.
 
The state Supreme Court, for the second time on Thursday, disagreed. The court ruled that selling wedding floral arrangements was not speech, but conduct, and thus not protected under the First Amendment.
 
“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.”
 
Stutzman also argued that since other florists were willing to provide flowers to the wedding, there was no real harm caused by her refusal to serve Ingersoll and Freed.
 
“We emphatically reject this argument,” the court wrote. “Public accommodation laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace.”
 
 
 
 
Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote
The state Supreme Court, for the second time on Thursday, disagreed. The court ruled that selling wedding floral arrangements was not speech, but conduct, and thus not protected under the First Amendment.
  
“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.”

I think very few people would interpret selling flowers as endorsement. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 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

Presumably, Arlene's will now petition SCOTUS to review the decision again. It will be interesting to see if they will agree to consider the case.

My suspicion is that they may be waiting for some of the other cases percolating up through the courts which are better suited to address the free speech issue, such as the calligrapher or videographer cases. 

I'm not entirely sure where I place florists on the continuum of artistic expression / protected speech. Most of my experience with florists has been of the widget-making variety, leading me to lean more towards it not being protected. That being said, I have seen examples of florists doing some really amazing, artistic things using dyes and whatnot, so I'm open to the idea that some florists might really be engaging in artistic expression and should thus be free to accept or decline work according to their conscience.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Presumably, Arlene's will now petition SCOTUS to review the decision again. It will be interesting to see if they will agree to consider the case.

My suspicion is that they may be waiting for some of the other cases percolating up through the courts which are better suited to address the free speech issue, such as the calligrapher or videographer cases. 

I'm not entirely sure where I place florists on the continuum of artistic expression / protected speech. Most of my experience with florists has been of the widget-making variety, leading me to lean more towards it not being protected. That being said, I have seen examples of florists doing some really amazing, artistic things using dyes and whatnot, so I'm open to the idea that some florists might really be engaging in artistic expression and should thus be free to accept or decline work according to their conscience.

 

But artistic expression does not automatically convey speech even if it conveys emotion.

I guess it would depend on what is being required.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

But artistic expression does not automatically convey speech even if it conveys emotion.

I guess it would depend on what is being required.

 

A t-shirt with a "**** the War" legend was found by SCOTUS to be protected speech. When it comes to expression, there's no such thing as too broad. Compulsory expression is highly problematic.  We can only pray our compulsory attendance at the sacrifice to Antiochus' statue won't be required this year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is really not a big deal.  An artist has a right to their artistic expression.  So an artist can put a bunch of anti-gay stuff on their work and would be fine.  That would solve this issue fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/23/2019 at 8:18 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.”

 

Report anyone bringing up comparisons to Hitler to the mods immediately

They are strict on enforcing Godwin's Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Quote

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerumoccurs.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/23/2019 at 9:35 PM, Calm said:

So it would be Christian business owners suing for the right to refuse to "promote" LDS weddings that would be the next target if they win, wouldn't it?

How would anyone know what religion one is if you just order a wedding cake?

Get the cake and stick a temple thingy on top yourself!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/23/2019 at 9:35 PM, Calm said:

So it would be Christian business owners suing for the right to refuse to "promote" LDS weddings that would be the next target if they win, wouldn't it?

Has anyone ever even heard of anyone ordering a "straight" wedding cake?

What's the difference?

Odd that there would be one.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, USU78 said:

A t-shirt with a "**** the War" legend was found by SCOTUS to be protected speech. When it comes to expression, there's no such thing as too broad. Compulsory expression is highly problematic.  We can only pray our compulsory attendance at the sacrifice to Antiochus' statue won't be required this year.

Text is obviously speech

A bouquet of red roses may convey an idea or not (could be a declaration of love or they just may like the smell or color). 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Text is obviously speech

A bouquet of red roses may convey an idea or not (could be a declaration of love or they just may like the smell or color). 

Do you do art? It's the same process of creation regardless of the medium. Words is one medium. Clay. Stone. Bricks and mortar. Oils. Water colors. Paper. Gilt. Ink. Chalk. Vibration. Percussion. Movement. Space. And, yes, even flowers. And more and more.

The science of aesthetics is all about communication. Sometimes with words. More often ... Not.

Edited by USU78
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, USU78 said:

Do you do art? It's the same process of creation regardless of the medium. Words is one medium. Clay. Stone. Bricks and mortar. Oils. Water colors. Paper. Gilt. Ink. Chalk. Vibration. Percussion. Movement. Space. And, yes, even flowers. And more and more.

The science of aesthetics is all about communication. Sometimes with words. More often ... Not.

Fascinating.  While beautifully descriptive and evocatively poetic, your comment that—

"Words is one medium. Clay. Stone. Bricks and mortar. Oils. Water colors. Paper. Gilt. Ink. Chalk. Vibration. Percussion. Movement. Space. And, yes, even flowers..."

—directly echos a similarly artistic assertion made by Ms. Stutzman (“crafted in petal, leaf, and loam...”), which appeals to the artistic spirit in all of us, but from a legal perspective, was soundly rejected by WA Supreme Court based on the circumstances specific to this case, and given the ample legal precedent beginning on page 41 of the ruling itself (hence my suggestion that it's worth a read, since it tackles many assertions being made on this board head-on, the major difference being it actually involves what the law itself requires, rather than the lay conjecture most of us non-legal amateurs engage in). 

In fact, it even address and explains how the ruling about the 'inherently expressive' t-shirt with profanity you mentioned earlier also doesn't apply to Stutzman's case, hers not being an issue of First Amendment-protected “free speech” at all.

Here's pages 41-46, from which I've removed the additional citations of the actual rulings (long stretches of numbers/letters/punctuation) to make it easier to read, but which can be found with the full legal citations at the link to the full ruling which I provided earlier. 

I bolded the two portions that echo your previous comments mentioned above. While long, it clearly addresses and refutes your assertions that Stutzman’s commercially-regulated floral creations are or should be protected free speech:

Quote

Stutzman contends that her floral arrangements are artistic expressions protected by the state and federal constitutions and that the WLAD impermissibly compels her to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.


i. As applied to Stutzman in this case, the WLAD does not violate First Amendment speech protections


"Free speech is revered as the 'Constitution's most majestic guarantee,' central to the preservation of all other rights." To the extent Stutzman argues that her religious free exercise rights supersede Ingersoll's and Freed's statutory protections, we address that argument in the constitutional analyses below.

"The government may not prohibit the dissemination of ideas that it disfavors, nor compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves."  Indeed, the First Amendment protects even hate speech, provided it is not "fighting words" or a "'true threat.'" 

Stutzman argues that the WLAD, as applied to her in this case, violates First Amendment protections against "compelled speech" because it forces her to endorse same-sex manage. 

To succeed in this argument, she must first demonstrate that the conduct at issue here—her commercial sale of floral wedding arrangements—amounts to "expression" protected by the First Amendment. ("It is the obligation of the person desiring to engage in assertively expressive conduct to demonstrate that the First Amendment even applies. To hold otherwise would be to create a rule that all conduct is presumptively expressive.").

She fails to meet this burden. The First Amendment's plain terms protect "speech," not conduct. U.S. Const, amend. ("Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech."). But the line between speech and conduct in this context is not always clear. 

Stutzman contends that her floral arrangements are "speech" for purposes of First Amendment protections because they involve her artistic decisions. Relying on the dictionary definition of "art," as well as expert testimony regarding her creativity and expressive style, she argues for a broad reading of protected speech that encompasses her "unique expression," crafted in "petal, leaf, and loam." 

Ingersoll and the State counter that Stutzman's arrangements are simply one facet of conduct—selling goods and services for weddings in the commercial marketplace—that does not implicate First Amendment protections at all.

We agree that the regulated activity at issue in this case—Stutzman's sale of wedding floral arrangements—is not "speech" in a literal sense and is thus properly characterized as conduct. 

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.

Stutzman's refusal is analogous. The decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding. As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, 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. Stutzman also testified that she has previously declined wedding business on "[m]ajor holidays, when we don't have the staff or if they want particular flowers that we can't get in the time frame they need." Accordingly, an outside observer may be left to wonder whether a wedding was declined for one of at least three reasons: a religious objection, insufficient staff, or insufficient stock.

Stutzman argues that FAIR is inapposite and that we should instead apply Hurley. Hurley held that a state anti-discrimination law could not be applied so as to require a private parade to include marchers displaying a gay pride message.  Stutzman claims Hurley recognizes her First Amendment right "to exclude a message [she] did not like from the communication [she] chose to make."

Stutzman relies on Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc., in which the Boston Symphony (BSO) refused to perform with Vanessa Hurley is similar to this case in one respect; it involved a public accommodations law like the WLAD.  But the Massachusetts trial court had ruled that the parade itself was a place of public accommodation under state antidiscrimination law—a ruling that the Supreme Court called "peculiar."  

The Supreme Court has drawn this distinction between expressive conduct and commercial activity in the context of First Amendment freedom of association claims, and likewise rejected the notion that the First Amendment precludes enforcement of antidiscrimination public accommodations laws in that context as well. E.g., Dale (distinguishing between "clearly commercial entities" and "membership organizations" in cases involving the intersection between state public accommodations laws and First Amendment rights); Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (finding that even private membership organizations may be regulated by public accommodations laws where such regulations will not impair its ability "to disseminate its preferred views" and holding that there was no such impairment where young men's social organization was required to accept women members).

The Court noted that the parade's "inherent expressiveness" distinguished it from the places traditionally subject to public accommodations laws—places that provide "publicly available goods, privileges, and services." Hurley is therefore unavailing to Stutzman: her store is the kind of public accommodation that has traditionally been subject to antidiscrimination laws. See Elane Photography, 309 P.3d at 68 (rejecting photographer's reliance on Hurley because state antidiscrimination law applies not to defendant's photographs but to "its business decision not to offer its services to protected classes of people"; concluding that "[wjhile photography may be expressive, the operation of a photography business is not").'

United States Supreme Court decisions that accord free speech protections to conduct under the First Amendment have all dealt with conduct that is clearly expressive, in and of itself, without further explanation. See Hurley (parades); United States v. Eichman (burning the American flag), 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989) (burning the American flag); United States v. Grace (distributing leaflets outside Supreme Court building in violation of federal statute); Nat'I Socialist Party of Am. V. Village of Skokie, ('"[m]arching, walking or parading'" while wearing Nazi uniforms); Smith v. Goguen (treating flag '"contemptuously"' by wearing a small American flag sewn into the seat of one's pants); Wooley v. Maynard (state motto on license plates); Spence (displaying American flag upside down on private property with peace sign superimposed on it to express feelings about Cambodian invasion and Kent State University shootings); Cohen v. California (wearing jacket emblazoned with the words "'F**k the Draft'"); Schacht V. United States (wearing army uniform in short play criticizing United States involvement in Vietnam, inasmuch as it does not tend to discredit the armed forces); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (wearing black armbands to protest Vietnam conflict); Brown v. Louisiana (sit-in to protest "whites only" area in public library during civil rights struggle); Cox v. Louisiana (giving speech and leading group of protesters in song and prayer in opposition to segregation); Edwards v. South Carolina, (peaceful march on sidewalk around State House grounds in protest of discrimination); W. Va. State Bd.of Educ. V. Barnette (refusing to salute the American flag while saying pledge of allegiance); Stromberg v. California, (peaceful display of red flag as a sign of opposition to organized government). 

Stutzman's conduct—whether it is characterized as creating floral arrangements, providing floral an"angement services for opposite-sex weddings, or denying those services for same-sex weddings—is not like the inherently expressive activities at issue in these cases. Instead, it is like the unprotected conduct in FAIR.

 

 

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, USU78 said:

A t-shirt with a "**** the War" legend was found by SCOTUS to be protected speech...

When it comes to expression, there's no such thing as too broad.

Per my post above and the ruling quoted therein, your first sentence above is accurate, and again, per the ruling, your second sentence is legally incorrect.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

This is really not a big deal.  An artist has a right to their artistic expression.  So an artist can put a bunch of anti-gay stuff on their work and would be fine.  That would solve this issue fast. 

Art created by an artist for her/his own sake is not regulated in the same way that commercially-regulated artistic creations for sale to the general public are.  In the first context, you’re correct that an artist has a right to their own artistic expression, but the second must abide by public accommodation laws.

Business owners offering creative services to the general public are different and must abide by the legal regulations in the business realm.  Any business owner who incorporates inherently-expressive (explicit) derogatory messages into their product which normally doesn’t carry such derogatory messages (i.e. a baker baking a wedding cake that’s typically wordless with added words  saying “XXX is sinful” for customers who are members of the XXX protected class) would be breaking the law, just as any business owners that refuse to sell goods or services.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, USU78 said:

Do you do art? It's the same process of creation regardless of the medium. Words is one medium. Clay. Stone. Bricks and mortar. Oils. Water colors. Paper. Gilt. Ink. Chalk. Vibration. Percussion. Movement. Space. And, yes, even flowers. And more and more.

The science of aesthetics is all about communication. Sometimes with words. More often ... Not.

I don’t disagree. But I think the government has. 

And I think an artist who arts for purely money (is told what the client wants and then produces it to that instruction) is somewhat different than one who arts first and than may sell or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t disagree. But I think the government has. 

And I think an artist who arts for purely money (is told what the client wants and then produces it to that instruction) is somewhat different than one who arts first and than may sell or not. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 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.

But an artist who creates and sells her/his own original works is different than one who hangs up her/his shingle accepting commissions to create non-inherently-expressive yet still-creative products like cakes, flowers, or documentary videos and/or photographs.

The law is clear on this and has been settled for decades on the matter, whether or not you agree.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The Courts can force a business to sell, but it cannot dictate the quality of service provided. There are so many ways to skin this cat. 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. 

I see no reason to allow any government entity to force any business to do anything. This is not something I think really needs to be adjudicated, but let simple capitalism function. Those that target the Christian businesses will quickly get the idea that it is not worth it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The Courts can force a business to sell, but it cannot dictate the quality of service provided. There are so many ways to skin this cat. 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. 

I see no reason to allow any government entity to force any business to do anything. This is not something I think really needs to be adjudicated, but let simple capitalism function. Those that target the Christian businesses will quickly get the idea that it is not worth it. 

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 her 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.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Calm said:

But artistic expression does not automatically convey speech even if it conveys emotion.

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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 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

So. You've read my poetry.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Art created by an artist for her/his own sake is not regulated in the same way that commercially-regulated artistic creations for sale to the general public are.  In the first context, you’re correct that an artist has a right to their own artistic expression, but the second must abide by public accommodation laws.

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...