Christians Again Forced To Do Artwork For LGBT

[Anijen]

On 6/8/2019 at 4:35 PM, Calm said:

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

Calm, I think Daniel and  others, are not quiet grasping the law, or perhaps only seeing what they want to see in the law. Let me try to help. When the Supreme Court looks at First Amendment issues regarding speech they will first separate the speech into if the violation of the government regulation is based on content or if the violated regulation is based on conduct.

2) Conduct-based restrictions, the conduct can be regulated by content-neutral time, place, and manner. This means the government has the power to regulate conduct associated with speech, the breadth of this power depends on whether the forum involved is a public forum, a designated public forum, a limited public forum, or a non-public forum.

• Time: This is why certain words or movies can only be shown at certain times to the public.
• Place: Also why you can have a protest at a park or a cemetery, but you cannot go on to a military base and protest.
• Manner: is the mode of communication, (i.e. flag burning).

The main issues we all await from the Supreme Court, which we did not see in Arlene's or in Masterpiece, is the issue of compelled speech, or specifically compelled conduct by the government upon a private citizen who declares that compelled speech/conduct violates their First Amendment rights. I hope this gets solved soon, SCOTUS can't delay for ever.

[Anijen]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Sometimes even beyond the example you have shown. For example Presidential candidates and Presidents have been asked (or by threat of being sued) to not even play certain music because the creator of that music (not even being at the event) disagrees with the politics. 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Not sure how it applies to performers. I’m not aware of any cases that have addressed this yet. 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Calm, I think Daniel and  others, are not quiet grasping the law, or perhaps only seeing what they want to see in the law. Let me try to help. When the Supreme Court looks at First Amendment issues regarding speech they will first separate the speech into if the violation of the government regulation is based on content or if the violated regulation is based on conduct.

2) Conduct-based restrictions, the conduct can be regulated by content-neutral time, place, and manner. This means the government has the power to regulate conduct associated with speech, the breadth of this power depends on whether the forum involved is a public forum, a designated public forum, a limited public forum, or a non-public forum.

• Time: This is why certain words or movies can only be shown at certain times to the public.
• Place: Also why you can have a protest at a park or a cemetery, but you cannot go on to a military base and protest.
• Manner: is the mode of communication, (i.e. flag burning).

The main issues we all await from the Supreme Court, which we did not see in Arlene's or in Masterpiece, is the issue of compelled speech, or specifically compelled conduct by the government upon a private citizen who declares that compelled speech/conduct violates their First Amendment rights. I hope this gets solved soon, SCOTUS can't delay for ever.

I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring or seeing only what I want to see....?  I've been quoting from the ruling itself. 

Everything else that you wrote above is in keeping with what my understanding is and has been.... In fact, the portions of the ruling I quoted touch on the numerous SCOTUS rulings about conduct as speech, including your flag burning example.

What part do you feel I'm not grasping?

Edited June 10, 2019 by Daniel2

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Calm, I think Daniel and  others, are not quiet grasping the law, or perhaps only seeing what they want to see in the law. Let me try to help. When the Supreme Court looks at First Amendment issues regarding speech they will first separate the speech into if the violation of the government regulation is based on content or if the violated regulation is based on conduct.

2) Conduct-based restrictions, the conduct can be regulated by content-neutral time, place, and manner. This means the government has the power to regulate conduct associated with speech, the breadth of this power depends on whether the forum involved is a public forum, a designated public forum, a limited public forum, or a non-public forum.

• Time: This is why certain words or movies can only be shown at certain times to the public.
• Place: Also why you can have a protest at a park or a cemetery, but you cannot go on to a military base and protest.
• Manner: is the mode of communication, (i.e. flag burning).

The main issues we all await from the Supreme Court, which we did not see in Arlene's or in Masterpiece, is the issue of compelled speech, or specifically compelled conduct by the government upon a private citizen who declares that compelled speech/conduct violates their First Amendment rights. I hope this gets solved soon, SCOTUS can't delay for ever.

We are (or were) compelled to buy a product. So there's that.

[Daniel2]

23 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.

I have several thoughts about what you wrote above which I will space over a series of posts, since my first point will quote from the ruling itself and will be somewhat lengthy.

I understand how the account about Rosa Parks, which occurred 64 years ago and galvanized the civil rights movement concerning racial equality and ultimately ended up in our history books, has been the subject of historical revisionism, with potential embellishments and omissions adding to and potentially white-washing some aspects of the story.  After all, the event happened 64 years ago, and also occurred at a time when media exposure was far more limited than we've become accustomed to, today.  I'm actually curious how aware the public and courts were at the time of Rosa Park's activism, and will be pursing that in my own further research now that it's piqued my own curiosity over the matter.

That said, even if Rosa Parks was more of a conscious activist, how much does it change the narrative?  Does it means she is worthy of vilification or nefarious motives?  Was she any less sincere in her desire to bring about an end to unjust racial discrimination, segregation, et all?  Do any of us today think that forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus and allow whites to have the preferred seats should have continued or is something society should bring back?  Is conscious activism in pursuit of equal treatment for a newly emerging protected class somehow 'worse' than accidental victimization?  Is it wrong for those who feel they are denied justice to exercise their government-mandated right to seek redress through the court system...? 

I'm not so sure that conscious activists like Rosa Parks are worthy of scorn or derision.  Is she any less a hero that she stood her ground, knowing the cause she was hoping to engage in?

All of the above said, I still maintain that the two cases in this thread are not like Rosa Parks in any sense that Ingersol and Freed were NOT "innocent buyers sincerely wanting a specific provider to assist them," and they did NOT target Arlene's Flowers "because of who they are and their personal standards."

Quoting once again from the ruling in the link I provided earlier, here's pages 5-9 that addresses your points (again, I've removed the legal citacions to make it more readable, but those citacions can be found in the link previously provided):

 

Quote

Facts

 

In 2004, Ingersoll and Freed began a committed, romantic relationship. In 2012, the people of our state voted to recognize equal civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. Freed proposed marriage to Ingersoll that same year. The two intended to marry on their ninth anniversary, in September 2013, and were "excited about organizing [their] wedding." Their plans included inviting "[a] hundred plus" guests to celebrate with them at Bella Fiori Gardens, complete with a dinner or reception, a photographer, a caterer, a wedding cake, and flowers.

 

By the time he and Freed became engaged, Ingersoll had been a customer at Arlene's Flowers for at least nine years, purchasing numerous floral arrangements from Stutzman and spending an estimated several thousand dollars at her shop. Stutzman is the owner and president of Arlene's Flowers. She employs approximately 10 people, depending on the season, including three floral designers, one of whom is herself. Stutzman knew that Ingersoll is gay and that he had been in a relationship with Freed for several years. The two men considered Arlene's Flowers to be "[their] florist."

 

Stutzman is an active member of the Southern Baptist church. It is uncontested that her sincerely held religious beliefs include a belief that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman. On February 28, 2013, Ingersoll went to Arlene's Flowers on his way home from work, hoping to talk to Stutzman about purchasing flowers for his upcoming wedding. Ingersoll told an Arlene's Flowers employee that he was engaged to marry Freed and that they wanted Arlene's Flowers to provide the flowers for their wedding. The employee informed Ingersoll that Stutzman was not at the shop and that he would need to speak directly with her. The next day, Ingersoll returned to speak with Ms. Stutzman. At that time, Stutzman told Ingersoll that she would be unable to do the flowers for his wedding because of her religious beliefs, specifically because of "her relationship with Jesus Christ."

 

Ingersoll did not have a chance to specify what kind of flowers or floral arrangements he was seeking before Stutzman told him that she would not serve him. They also did not discuss whether Stutzman would be asked to bring the arrangements to the wedding location or whether the flowers would be picked up from her shop.

 

Stutzman asserts that she gave Ingersoll the names of other florists who might be willing to serve him, and that the two hugged before Ingersoll left her store. 

 

Ingersoll maintains that he walked away from that conversation "feeling very hurt and upset emotionally."  

 

Early the next morning, after a sleepless night, Freed posted a status update on his personal Facebook feed regarding Stutzman's refusal to sell him wedding flowers. The update observed, without specifically naming Arlene's Flowers, that the couple's "favorite Richland Lee Boulevard flower shop" had declined to provide flowers for their wedding on religious grounds, and noted that Freed felt "so deeply offended that apparently our business is no longer good business" because "[his] loved one [did not fit] within their personal beliefs." This message was apparently widely circulated, though Ingersoll testified that their Facebook settingswere  such that the message was "only intended for our friends and family."

 

Eventually, the story drew the attention of numerous media outlets. As a result of the "emotional toll" Stutzman's refusal took on Freed and Ingersoll, they "lost enthusiasm for a large ceremony" as initially imagined. In fact, the two "stopped planning for a wedding in September 2013 because [they] feared being denied service by other wedding vendors." The couple also feared that in light of increasing public attention—some of which caused them to be concerned for their own safety—as well as then-ongoing litigation, a larger wedding might require a security presence or attract protesters, such as the Westboro Baptist group. So they were married on July 21, 2013, in a modest ceremony at their home. There were 11 people in attendance.  For the occasion, Freed and Ingersoll purchased one bouquet of flowers from a different florist and boutonnieres from their friend. When word of this story got out in the media, a handful of florists offered to provide them wedding flowers free of charge.

 

Stutzman also received a great deal of attention from the publicity surrounding this case, including threats to her business and other unkind messages.

 

Prior to Ingersoll's request, Arlene's Flowers had never had a request to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, and the only time Stutzman has ever refused to serve a customer is when Ingersoll and Freed asked her to provide flowers for their wedding. The decision not to serve Ingersoll was made strictly by Stutzman and her husband.  After Ingersoll and Freed's request, Stutzman developed an "unwritten policy" for Arlene's Flowers that they "don't take same sex marriages."

 

Stutzman states that the only reason for this policy is her conviction that "biblically[,] marriage is between a man and a woman." Aside from Ingersoll and Freed, she has served gay and lesbian customers in the past for other, non-wedding-related flower orders.

 

Stutzman maintains that she would not sell Ingersoll any arranged flowers for his wedding, even if he were asking her only to replicate a prearranged bouquet from a picture book of sample arrangements. She believes that participating, or allowing any employee of her store to participate, in a same-sex wedding by providing custom floral arrangements and related customer service is tantamount to endorsing marriage equality for same-sex couples. She draws a distinction between creating floral arrangements—even those designed by someone else—and selling bulk flowers and "raw materials," which she would be happy to do for Ingersoll and Freed.

 

Stutzman believes that to create floral arrangements is to use her "imagination and artistic skill to intimately participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony." However, Stutzman acknowledged that selling flowers for an atheistic or Muslim wedding would not be tantamount to endorsing those systems of belief.

 

By Stutzman's best estimate, approximately three percent of her business comes from weddings. Stutzman is not currently providing any wedding floral services (other than for members of her immediate family) during the pendency of this case.

 

Procedural History

 

After the State became aware of Stutzman's refusal to sell flowers to Ingersoll and Freed, the Attorney General's Office sent Stutzman a letter. It sought her agreement to stop discriminating against customers on the basis of their sexual orientation and noted that doing so would prevent further formal action or costs against her. The letter asked her to sign an "Assurance of Discontinuance," which stated that she would no longer discriminate in the provision of wedding floral services. Stutzman refused to sign the letter.

 

As a result, the State filed a complaint for injunctive and other relief under the CPA and the WLAD against both Stutzman and Arlene's Flowers, in Benton County Superior Court on April 9, 2013.

 

 

Key points, from my perspective, from the court-identified “Facts” that refute your characterization that there “Not a single one of these cases were … innocent buyer sincerely wanting a specific provider to assist them” or that Arlene’s Flowers was specifically “targeted because of who they are and their personal standards”:

 

• “By the time he and Freed became engaged, Ingersoll had been a customer at Arlene's Flowers for at least nine years, purchasing numerous floral arrangements from Stutzman and spending an estimated several thousand dollars at her shop.”

 

• “The two men considered Arlene's Flowers to be ‘[their] florist.’”

 

• “Stutzman asserts that … the two hugged before Ingersoll left her store.”

 

• “Early the next morning, after a sleepless night, Freed posted a status update on his personal Facebook feed regarding Stutzman's refusal to sell him wedding flowers… This message was apparently widely circulated, though Ingersoll testified that their Facebook settings were such that the message was ‘only intended for our friends and family.’”

 

• “Eventually, the story drew the attention of numerous media outlets.”

 

• “After the State became aware of Stutzman's refusal to sell flowers to Ingersoll and Freed, the Attorney General's Office sent Stutzman a letter.  It sought her agreement to stop discriminating against customers on the basis of their sexual orientation and noted that doing so would prevent further formal action or costs against her. The letter asked her to sign an "Assurance of Discontinuance," which stated that she would no longer discriminate in the provision of wedding floral services. Stutzman refused to sign the letter.”

 

• “As a result, the State filed a complaint for injunctive and other relief under the CPA and the WLAD against both Stutzman and Arlene's Flowers, in Benton County Superior Court on April 9, 2013.”

 

Ingersoll and Freed were on friendly terms with Stutzman, who they considered to be “their florist.”

 

Apparently, they were close enough that Stutzman asserts that they hugged after she told them she wouldn’t be providing flowers for their wedding.

 

Ingersoll and Freed didn’t even ask for or initially imagine a lawsuit against Stuzman; it was the State of Colorado that became aware of Stutzman’s refusal, and they initiated proceedings against the business owner attempting to uphold the law.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Daniel2

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Calm, I think Daniel and  others, are not quiet grasping the law, or perhaps only seeing what they want to see in the law. Let me try to help. When the Supreme Court looks at First Amendment issues regarding speech they will first separate the speech into if the violation of the government regulation is based on content or if the violated regulation is based on conduct.

2) Conduct-based restrictions, the conduct can be regulated by content-neutral time, place, and manner. This means the government has the power to regulate conduct associated with speech, the breadth of this power depends on whether the forum involved is a public forum, a designated public forum, a limited public forum, or a non-public forum.

• Time: This is why certain words or movies can only be shown at certain times to the public.
• Place: Also why you can have a protest at a park or a cemetery, but you cannot go on to a military base and protest.
• Manner: is the mode of communication, (i.e. flag burning).

The main issues we all await from the Supreme Court, which we did not see in Arlene's or in Masterpiece, is the issue of compelled speech, or specifically compelled conduct by the government upon a private citizen who declares that compelled speech/conduct violates their First Amendment rights. I hope this gets solved soon, SCOTUS can't delay for ever.

Griswold stands for the proposition that people are entitled to be left alone as a starting point of constitutional jurisprudence.

The rights found within the Bill of Rights' penumbra (per Griswold), which the cake and flower and private wedding chapel cases seek to be trump cards nullifying First Amendment rights, are really nullifying the right to be left alone.

A frightening irony. Frightening because they signal outcome-determined constitutional law: find the pet, find the winning side.

[MiserereNobis]

It seems to me that a couple of posters are not reading the actual court ruling that Daniel keeps posting. It’s unfortunate, because it makes them look ignorant in their responses. Not only are they not dealing with the court’s arguments (arguments that are refuting their positions), but they don’t even have the basic facts of the case right. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I have several thoughts about what you wrote above which I will space over a series of posts, since my first point will quote from the ruling itself and will be somewhat lengthy.

I understand how the account about Rosa Parks, which occurred 64 years ago and galvanized the civil rights movement concerning racial equality and ultimately ended up in our history books, has been the subject of historical revisionism, with potential embellishments and omissions adding to and potentially white-washing some aspects of the story.  After all, the event happened 64 years ago, and also occurred at a time when media exposure was far more limited than we've become accustomed to, today.  I'm actually curious how aware the public and courts were at the time of Rosa Park's activism, and will be pursing that in my own further research now that it's piqued my own curiosity over the matter.

That said, even if Rosa Parks was more of a conscious activist, how much does it change the narrative?  Does it means she is worthy of vilification or nefarious motives?  Was she any less sincere in her desire to bring about an end to unjust racial discrimination, segregation, et all?  Do any of us today think that forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus and allow whites to have the preferred seats should have continued or is something society should bring back?  Is conscious activism in pursuit of equal treatment for a newly emerging protected class somehow 'worse' than accidental victimization?  Is it wrong for those who feel they are denied justice to exercise their government-mandated right to seek redress through the court system...? 

I'm not so sure that conscious activists like Rosa Parks are worthy of scorn or derision.  Is she any less a hero that she stood her ground, knowing the cause she was hoping to engage in?

All of the above said, I still maintain that the two cases in this thread are not like Rosa Parks in any sense that Ingersol and Freed were NOT "innocent buyers sincerely wanting a specific provider to assist them," and they did NOT target Arlene's Flowers "because of who they are and their personal standards."

Quoting once again from the ruling in the link I provided earlier, here's pages 5-9 that addresses your points (again, I've removed the legal citacions to make it more readable, but those citacions can be found in the link previously provided):

No, I don't think it changes the narrative, but it changes the story. Activists manipulate the feelings of the public to meet their objectives. My critique is not about the validity of the end product, but it is certainly a condemnation of the end justifies the means. 

It is a conflict for me - I am grateful that Rosa Parks was there, but I really hate the way I was played along with the entire American public as well as the ongoing manipulation of school children to this day. Tell the story as it really was and leave off the manipulation and I will shut my mouth. 

That is why I am strongly suspicious of any of these lawsuits - are any of them innocent or we just the butt of their emotional manipulation. The cry me a river play - "we just want to love one another and "you" won't let me" has played and I am not paying for a ticket any longer. Ain't going to happen. Folks start telling the truth - we are activists, we hunted this business up and used them as a target for a lawsuit and I will feel better about the process. 

As another aside since I am not addressing this case, as you start reading the real history of Rosa Parks, you might want to read about the politics and private life of MLK, Jr. It is one of the terrible things about our society today; we are ready to burn an individual at a post in the public square for one part of his life and completely forget about his life's accomplishments. If we used the same standard on all our heros of yesterday, MLK included, there would be very few heros left standing. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Storm Rider

[longview]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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

No need for assumptions.  There are hundreds of radicals, stealth workers and subversives most of whom you are already familiar with such as Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dorhn, Noam Chomsky . . . 

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/bill-ayers

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/bernardine-dohrn/

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/noam-chomsky

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/american-civil-liberties-union-aclu

Following the hundreds that are prominent are many thousands more that work just as diligently to "fundamentally transform" America and the world.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I don't think it changes the narrative, but it changes the story. Activists manipulate the feelings of the public to meet their objectives. My critique is not about the validity of the end product, but it is certainly a condemnation of the end justifies the means. 

It is a conflict for me - I am grateful that Rosa Parks was there, but I really hate the way I was played along with the entire American public as well as the ongoing manipulation of school children to this day. Tell the story as it really was and leave off the manipulation and I will shut my mouth. 

That is why I am strongly suspicious of any of these lawsuits - are any of them innocent or we just the butt of their emotional manipulation. The cry me a river play - "we just want to love one another and "you" won't let me" has played and I am not paying for a ticket any longer. Ain't going to happen. Folks start telling the truth - we are activists, we hunted this business up and used them as a target for a lawsuit and I will feel better about the process. 

As another aside since I am not addressing this case, as you start reading the real history of Rosa Parks, you might want to read about the politics and private life of MLK, Jr. It is one of the terrible things about our society today; we are ready to burn an individual at a post in the public square for one part of his life and completely forget about his life's accomplishments. If we used the same standard on all our heros of yesterday, MLK included, there would be very few heros left standing. 

If the last time you learned about it was in elementary school you should expect an elementary school level education.

We say the same things about those who feel they were deceived because Joseph Smith's plural marriages are not talked about in the Sunbeam class.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Not sure how it applies to performers. I’m not aware of any cases that have addressed this yet. 

As a paid member of a symphony orchestra, I might find ways to avoid a performance that I felt compromised my beliefs, or I might just not worry about it and go do it.

On the other hand, as a member of a non-union/non-licensed string quartet that plays for weddings and receptions, based on the current law suits, could I be faced with making the same decisions and consequences as the cake makers, etc.,  if I declined to perform at a SSM? Could I be subjected to legal action? Would this happen only if one has a business license? 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

Sometimes even beyond the example you have shown. For example Presidential candidates and Presidents have been asked (or by threat of being sued) to not even play certain music because the creator of that music (not even being at the event) disagrees with the politics. 

That is one reason they intervene. They could also sue those they agree with because the campaign did not actually, you know, pay for the song. It is theft.

I think the funniest incident was when a band asked Governor Scott of Wisconsin to stop using their music because "we literally hate you".

[Anijen]

I agree with USU78. He has the talent to express more succinctly than I can. He knows what he is talking about, for example it was the Griswold case that started all this "penumbra" nonsense (penumbra means a shadow casted by a large object such as the earth onto the moon). Since the words the Cheif Justice were looking for that he needed for his judgment were not in the Constitution, he had to say those words were implied by the "penumbra" off of the 4th 5th and other Amendments. Then once the Griswold decision was out other cases used that as precedent.

To Daniel, I understand you have been arguing straight from the case opinion, but that is still, IMO, not reliable. Not reliable, because Washington Supreme Court in its history has shown incredibly bias in favor of almost every liberal case they see, (as  do the notorious 9th circuit). I would suggest to be more objective link the entire arguments that both sides made to the court and not the decision. That way we can see through both lenses (objectivity).

[Anijen]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is one reason they intervene. They could also sue those they agree with because the campaign did not actually, you know, pay for the song. It is theft.

I think the funniest incident was when a band asked Governor Scott of Wisconsin to stop using their music because "we literally hate you".

That is funny, but where does this lead? Someone paid for that album, are they required to write the creator and ask for permission to play it at a celebration, a birthday party, a slumber party? I mean when did creative control after the purchase come. There are already royalties such as radio stations pay to playing a song on the air, but they do not need permission just in case one of their listening audience is, heaven forbid a conservative.

[Amulek]

On 6/8/2019 at 4:35 PM, Calm said:

On 6/8/2019 at 2:51 PM, 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.

HURLEY v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, INC.

Here, the court stated that "the Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression. Noting that "symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas," our cases have recognized that the First Amendment shields such acts as saluting a flag (and refusing to do so), wearing an armband to protest a war, displaying a red flag, and even "[m]arching, walking or parading" in uniforms displaying the swastika. As some of these examples show, a narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a "particularized message," cf. Spence v. Washington, would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll." [citations omitted, emphasis added]

Which isn't terribly surprising. Art is generally considered to be inherently expressive and thus protected by the First Amendment. How does the WA court deal with the petitioner's claim that custom floral arrangements are art? By waiving their hand and declaring "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 I think that elides the point. The argument is that it is the creation of custom floral arrangements that should be considered art - and thus afforded speech protections - not merely the sale of already made goods.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Amulek

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Anijen said:

That is funny, but where does this lead? Someone paid for that album, are they required to write the creator and ask for permission to play it at a celebration, a birthday party, a slumber party? I mean when did creative control after the purchase come. There are already royalties such as radio stations pay to playing a song on the air, but they do not need permission just in case one of their listening audience is, heaven forbid a conservative.

There are legal lines of what constitutes a public event. They cannot stop someone they hate from buying and listening to their music (sometimes even bakers have to let people they hate eat their cake) but there are limits to where you can use it. For example if I buy a DVD I can watch it with friends but if I set up a movie theater or show the movie at a political campaign rally I can be sued. Similar laws apply to music. Buying the song on iTunes does not mean you can use it at a public political event. Other rules apply.

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I agree with USU78. He has the talent to express more succinctly than I can. He knows what he is talking about, for example it was the Griswold case that started all this "penumbra" nonsense (penumbra means a shadow casted by a large object such as the earth onto the moon). Since the words the Cheif Justice were looking for that he needed for his judgment were not in the Constitution, he had to say those words were implied by the "penumbra" off of the 4th 5th and other Amendments. Then once the Griswold decision was out other cases used that as precedent.

To Daniel, I understand you have been arguing straight from the case opinion, but that is still, IMO, not reliable. Not reliable, because Washington Supreme Court in its history has shown incredibly bias in favor of almost every liberal case they see, (as  do the notorious 9th circuit). I would suggest to be more objective link the entire arguments that both sides made to the court and not the decision. That way we can see through both lenses (objectivity).

The penumbra is what give us a constitutional privacy right. Most people would not want that going away.

[Anijen]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are legal lines of what constitutes a public event. They cannot stop someone they hate from buying and listening to their music (sometimes even bakers have to let people they hate eat their cake) but there are limits to where you can use it. For example if I buy a DVD I can watch it with friends but if I set up a movie theater or show the movie at a political campaign rally I can be sued. Similar laws apply to music.

I know very well the legal lines of public events and copyright laws. There are no laws setting it up at a theatre and playing it, (royalties may be generated). They cannot say only liberals may play and listen to the music, but conservatives cannot. 

 

Quote

Buying the song on iTunes does not mean you can use it at a public political event. Other rules apply.

As the Genie would say; "there is a lot of gray area there." Kind of like the Biker whos leather jacket he bought and wore in court said "[$%#@] the draft" Was allowed to wear that in a public place.

Time, place, and manner restrictions are there, yes, but there are no laws disallowing a fighter to play Eye of the Tiger before his fight in the Rose Garden, Born in the USA at a park before fireworks or a candidate playing Proud to be an American at his rally. Sure the creator of the song can sue him, but really all the damages he would get are royalties or nominal at best.

[Anijen]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The penumbra is what give us a constitutional privacy right. Most people would not want that going away.

Agreed, the word privacy is not in the Constitution, but does it need to be? Can we not already see that in the plain language, e.g. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."  In the Griswold case the penumbra was used as a right to choose to have children or not (selling of birth control was one of the issues). In Griswold, that right to choose to have children took effect even if the mother was already pregnant. Q: How is the that choice (to have children) made after pregnancy? A: by abortion. Thus we see that penumbra was not only a shadow to introduce words not there or really needed, but also to introduce laws revolving around those now introduced words. 

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I know very well the legal lines of public events and copyright laws. There are no laws setting it up at a theatre and playing it, (royalties may be generated). They cannot say only liberals may play and listen to the music, but conservatives cannot. 

I've not read the BMI/ASCAP contract language for many years (I defended a restaurant that had purchased what was supposed to be public domain music piped in for a monthly fee).  It ended up being cheaper just to pay the claimed royalties than getting down in the weeds of what was and wasn't in the public domain.  My understanding, though, matches yours:  once music makers sell to BMI/ASCAP, they retain no control over its use.  Public persons (or any persons) agreeing not to use a particular song or catchphrase from a song thus becomes a matter of courtesy, since contractual right to use is in the public person, subject to payment of appropriate royalties.  And, believe me, BMI/ASCAP know exactly how much to charge.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The penumbra is what give us a constitutional privacy right. Most people would not want that going away.

While it can be agreed that privacy is implicit in the Constitution, it is NOT determined by penumbra.  Penumbra is a word totally fabricated by activist judges and NOT found in the Constitution.  It was done to do end runs around the original intent of the Founders.  Privacy is implicit because it and the Constitution were derived from natural laws/natural rights.  The Founders studied John Locke, Cicero, classical Greek reasoning/logic AND the Judeo-Christian enlightenment.

I just finished reading Ben Shapiro's book:  "The Right Side of History".  A fascinating overview of how monasteries in the middle ages contributed to record keeping and scholasticism (forerunner of universities) and the Renaissance and technological advancements of Western Civilization.  Ben also describes how atheistic philosophy developed through the centuries (which resulted in horrific crimes in the French Revolution and the totalitarian nightmares of the 20th century that butchered hundreds of millions of lives.

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

. . . In the Griswold case the penumbra was used as a right to choose to have children or not (selling of birth control was one of the issues). In Griswold, that right to choose to have children took effect even if the mother was already pregnant. Q: How is the that choice (to have children) made after pregnancy? A: by abortion. Thus we see that penumbra was not only a shadow to introduce words not there or really needed, but also to introduce laws revolving around those now introduced words. 

This is a typical example of the new "social justice" put forth by atheistic engineers.  It is one thing to have access to birth control.  But a whole different matter for the engineers to deny the personhood of the infant in the womb.  It is NOT simply a mass of tissue.  It has its own DNA distinct from BOTH the mother and the father.  It is viable from mid-term to delivery.  It is unconscionable for people to murder the child in the 3rd trimester.  Abhorrent for live birth.

It is utterly ridiculous for judges to give mothers the right to butcher an "inconvenient" child and at the same time deny the right of the new PERSON in the womb to life.  The pregnancy of the mother is her responsibility.  The circumstance around the child is NOT its fault.

Anijen is totally incorrect in saying that the court has the power to "introduce laws" or to "invent new words".  Those powers belong to the people and their elected Legislative representatives.

Edited June 10, 2019 by longview

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

I know very well the legal lines of public events and copyright laws. There are no laws setting it up at a theatre and playing it, (royalties may be generated). They cannot say only liberals may play and listen to the music, but conservatives cannot. 

 

As the Genie would say; "there is a lot of gray area there." Kind of like the Biker whos leather jacket he bought and wore in court said "[$%#@] the draft" Was allowed to wear that in a public place.

Time, place, and manner restrictions are there, yes, but there are no laws disallowing a fighter to play Eye of the Tiger before his fight in the Rose Garden, Born in the USA at a park before fireworks or a candidate playing Proud to be an American at his rally. Sure the creator of the song can sue him, but really all the damages he would get are royalties or nominal at best.

For the first.....they can actually by just suing the people they do not want to use it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

While it can be agreed that privacy is implicit in the Constitution, it is NOT determined by penumbra.  Penumbra is a word totally fabricated by activist judges and NOT found in the Constitution.  It was done to do end runs around the original intent of the Founders.  Privacy is implicit because it and the Constitution were derived from natural laws/natural rights.  The Founders studied John Locke, Cicero, classical Greek reasoning/logic AND the Judeo-Christian enlightenment.

I just finished reading Ben Shapiro's book:  "The Right Side of History".  A fascinating overview of how monasteries in the middle ages contributed to record keeping and scholasticism (forerunner of universities) and the Renaissance and technological advancements of Western Civilization.  Ben also describes how atheistic philosophy developed through the centuries (which resulted in horrific crimes in the French Revolution and the totalitarian nightmares of the 20th century that butchered hundreds of millions of lives.

The word penumbra is new but it is part of a series of derived rights defended by the judiciary long before the word existed. Lots of ideas are known and used and words come later to describe them.

I would also recommend getting your history from a better source.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Anijen is totally incorrect in saying that the court has the power to "introduce laws" or to "invent new words".  Those powers belong to the people and their elected Legislative representatives.

I never said the court has power to introduce laws, i said introduce words i.e. penumbra and privacy. The Court did not invent these words, but they did introduce them in their opinions. Which in effect creates court law another term for it is judicial activism.

Furthermore, when the courts use words this way it is literally called "magic words" as so I learned in law school. Another term for this is called dictum.