Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (8th Circuit Case)


Recommended Posts

The first right explained in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of the exercise of religion.  Nobody should be forced in their business to do things against their conscience.  Should a Muslim photographer be forced to take pictures of people of people depicting Mohammad in a negative way?  Should a Jewish photographer be forced to take pictures at a Nazi wedding?   There are enough people in the US who support gay marriage that there is plenty of access for gay couples to hire a photographer for their wedding.  Besides, why would a gay couple want someone at their wedding who does not want ot be there and beyond that have that person take the official pictures at that wedding.  That person might just take a lot of poor pictures.   I would think that the best option is to hire a photographer who actually wants to be there.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

I ran across this last week and thought it was rightly decided.

I could maybe be persuaded that cake decorating shouldn't be considered speech when it comes to first amendment analysis. I've said before that it was kind of an on-the-line case for me. 

But no way on earth am I going to be convinced that film making shouldn't count as speech. It most definitely is, and it ought to be vigorously defended.

I'm pleased to see the majority's holding. It will be interesting to see what comes of this going forward. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think the cake is the point.  Nor is the wedding pictures.  Rather, I think the purpose and intent being demonstrated in these cases is to subjugate Christians.  To punish Christians for their beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

More selfish than that, I think.  Not necessarily to punish those who don't do what they want but mainly just to get others to do what they want or think they should do.

I think we all would like to see other people do what we think they should do but to try to compel others to do.... whatever?  I think that is a very complex issue, but generally I think it's just selfish.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:
Quote

I don't think the cake is the point.  Nor is the wedding pictures.  Rather, I think the purpose and intent being demonstrated in these cases is to subjugate Christians.  To punish Christians for their beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

More selfish than that, I think.  Not necessarily to punish those who don't do what they want but mainly just to get others to do what they want or think they should do.

I'm not sure about that.  There seems to be a fixation on coercing and punishing Christians.  Punishing them for WrongThink.  Subjugating them.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think we all would like to see other people do what we think they should do but to try to compel others to do.... whatever?  I think that is a very complex issue, but generally I think it's just selfish.

Selfishness may be a part of it, sure.  But I think it goes past that and into vendetta territory.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is the federal appellate court for a large swath of Middle America (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota).  Lawsuits filed in federal courts start in the "District Court" for a particular state or portion of a state.  A losing party then has the option of filing an appeal to the circuit court.  Once the circuit court renders a decision, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court ("SCOTUS"), which gets to pick and choose which cases it decides to hear.  Only a very small percentage of cases are appealed to SCOTUS, and of those, only a very very small percentage (as in less than 1%) are accepted by SCOTUS.  Consequently, circuit court decisions can have a pretty big impact.  They are binding on all federal courts in the circuit, and are also often influential in other circuits, and also in state trial and appellate courts.

With that preamble out of the way, let's take a look at this news item:

I'll try to sum things up a bit (there's a lot to unpack), and also include my thoughts/observations:

1. The Larsens run a wedding videography business.

2. Based on the Larsens' religious beliefs, they do not want to include in their business the videography of same-sex weddings.  They have stated: “Angel and I serve everyone.  We just can’t produce films promoting every message."  This is an important point (and one glossed over, or even deliberately distorted, in the dissenting opinion of the Circuit Court - see below).  The Larsens oppose being forced to say things they do not want to say.  That is compelled speech.  That is antithetical to the Constitution.

3. The Larsens preemptively filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging state laws that, if applied, would punish the Larsens for refusing to photograph same-sex weddings (this issue is very similiar to the Christian bakery case in Colorado from last year).  The gist of their argument was/is that the Minnesota Human Rights Act's provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was "a state effort to stamp out expression opposing same sex marriage."

4. The federal district court (trial judge) dismissed the Larsens' lawsuit, saying that their refusal to photograph same-sex weddings would be "conduct akin to a 'White Applicants Only' sign," and that "{a}s conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment."

5. Last Friday, the Court of Appeals ordered the federal judge to decide whether the Larsens deserve a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law, which subjects violators to fines and possible jail time.  Specifically, the Eighth Circuit held that “antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution.”  The Circuit Court also held that wedding videos involve editorial judgment and control and “constituted a media for the communication of ideas,” and that the Constitution’s First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say.  The Circuit Court also observed: “Indeed, if Minnesota were correct, there is no reason it would have to stop with the Larsens. In theory, it could use the MHRA to require a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe ‘My religion is the only true religion’ on the body of a Christian if he or she would do the same for a fellow Muslim, or it could demand that an atheist musician perform at an evangelical church service.”  The Eighth Circuit also held that two of the Larsens' constitutional theories, "free speech" and "free exercise" cannot be dismissed.

6. The Circuit Court's decision was not unanimous.  The dissenting opinion states: "That the service the Larsens want to make available to the public is expressive does not transform Minnesota’s law into a content-based regulation, nor should it empower the Larsens to discriminate against prospective customers based on sexual orientation."

This is factually and legally wrong.  The state law is a "content-based regulation."  As applied, the law forces the Larsons to speak content they do not wish to speak.  This is also wrong in that it falsely accuses the Larsens of discriminating "based on sexual orientation."  The Larsens, as with the Colorado baker, are not discriminating.  It's not like they are willing to photograph a same-sex wedding if hired by a heterosexual.  They are refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding for anyone.

7. The case is now headed back to the federal district court for further proceedings.  The trial judge is now obligated to follow the instructions from the Eighth Circuit, which include some important findings about the Larsens' constitutional rights.  What happens next, though, is yet to be seen.

8. I appreciate the Circuit Court's examples of how the anti-discrimination law could - and almost certainly would - play out in other contexts.  The potential for misuse and abuse of state antidiscrimination laws is huge.  Would a homosexual baker really want to be compelled, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to decorate a cake with messages he finds objectionable?  Would an atheist videographer really went to be compelled by force of law to photograph and edit and produce a documentary glorifying the virtues of religion, and also condemning atheism as morally bankrupt and depraved?

Quoth the Larsens: “We are thankful the court recognized that government officials can’t force religious believers to violate their beliefs to pursue their passion.  This is a win for everyone, regardless of your beliefs.”

Just so.  Also, kudos to the Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal group that argued the Larsens' case.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for this. It’s too infrequent these days that we see good news coming out of the federal court system. This is refreshing indeed. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There seems to be a fixation on coercing and punishing Christians.  Punishing them for WrongThink.  Subjugating them.

Basically just trying to get them to do whatever they want them to do.  And yes also letting them know in no uncertain terms when they are not doing what they want them to do.   

...by fines, or coercion, or prison, or whatever they think is necessary to achieve their goal of getting others to do whatever they want them to do.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would a homosexual baker really want to be compelled, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to decorate a cake with messages he finds objectionable?  Would an atheist videographer really went to be compelled by force of law to photograph and edit and produce a documentary glorifying the virtues of religion, and also condemning atheism as morally bankrupt and depraved?

There you go.

THAT is the issue, clearly explained 

It needed to be put into terms the other side would understand and those are the terms

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:
Quote

Would a homosexual baker really want to be compelled, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to decorate a cake with messages he finds objectionable?  Would an atheist videographer really went to be compelled by force of law to photograph and edit and produce a documentary glorifying the virtues of religion, and also condemning atheism as morally bankrupt and depraved?

There you go.

THAT is the issue, clearly explained 

It needed to be put into terms the other side would understand and those are the terms

I hope the bullies lose.  For their sake as much as for ours.  If they win, it will because they have misused and abused public accommodations and anti-discrimination laws.  I would not be in favor of reciprocating that misuse and abuse (the Golden Rule and all that), but I think others out there are so inclined.  The bullies would, I think, really not enjoy being given tastes of their own medicine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope the bullies lose.  For their sake as much as for ours.  If they win, it will because they have misused and abused public accommodations and anti-discrimination laws.  I would not be in favor of reciprocating that misuse and abuse (the Golden Rule and all that), but I think others out there are so inclined.  The bullies would, I think, really not enjoy being given tastes of their own medicine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed but I suppose they will have their own passive-aggressive rationale for why that was ok for them and not for others.  It WILL come out.   Tick, tick tick....

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  "Freedom of conscience for me and mine, but not for thee and thine."  That seems to be what the bullies and their execrable enablers (like the so-called Colorado "Human Rights" Commission) are expecting.

Thanks,

-Smac

So they're saying it's good to say SSM is good but not good to say SSM is bad.  They support calling evil good and are calling what is good evil.

Pawns, the whole lot of them, I tell you.

Link to comment

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hope the bullies lose.  For their sake as much as for ours.  If they win, it will because they have misused and abused public accommodations and anti-discrimination laws.  I would not be in favor of reciprocating that misuse and abuse (the Golden Rule and all that), but I think others out there are so inclined.  The bullies would, I think, really not enjoy being given tastes of their own medicine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would rather see speech protected. But if not...the law will become a bludgeon.

Lawsuits trolls on either side of the issue will easily find targets.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Would rather see speech protected. But if not...the law will become a bludgeon.

Lawsuits trolls on either side of the issue will easily find targets.

Just part of what is involved in upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.  When people try to violate our freedom of speech, even by court order, we can uphold the Constitution by upholding our rights..

The good guys are supposed to win, though, eventually, and we will.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hope the bullies lose.  For their sake as much as for ours. 

Exactly. The same law which protects a Christian videographer's right to not create a film celebrating a same sex marriage is the same law which a gay freelance writer would rely on when turning down a commission to write copy saying positive things about Fred Phelps' church - even though he may happily take money to write positive things about other churchs. 

 

Link to comment
Just now, Thinking said:

I'm wondering what would happen if an LDS couple solicited the services of a baker to create a cake in the shape of an LDS temple, and the baker refused on the grounds that he doesn't believe in temple marriage.

I suspect most LDS couples would just bake the cake themselves.  It isn't that hard.  And if more help was needed it could become a Relief Society project.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Oh, this has already happened.  The Supreme Court mentioned it in their Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.  See here (emphases added): 

See also this comment from one of the attorneys who represented the baker in the above case:

Yep.  "Freedom of conscience/speech for me and mine, but not for thee and thine."  That seems to be what the bullies and their execrable enablers (like the so-called Colorado "Human Rights" Commission) are expecting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Holy cow!! 

I seldom follow this stuff- thanks for pointing it out.  I could see it coming, and had no idea that it already came and went, but should have.

Looks like it is justifiable to have a "phobia" about this political correctness gone amok.   It is not a phobia, it is real. 

That's WAY over the line for anyone fair minded.  One rule for me, another for you.

What can we do counselor? 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I'm wondering what would happen if an LDS couple solicited the services of a baker to create a cake in the shape of an LDS temple, and the baker refused on the grounds that he doesn't believe in temple marriage.

Duh

Go somewhere else.  How many LDS bakers are there in Utah?   Heck there is one major pastry chef in my stake alone.  The temple cake business is huge.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Conflating commerce with speech is going to lead to bad outcomes.

I'm sorry, but this is plainly a speech issue. As the majority wrote in their decision, "[t]he Larsens' videos are a form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that "expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." 

If you are so inclined, I would highly recommend you read the entire decision. It's really quite good and can be accessed online, here: Telescope Media Group v. Lucero

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I'm wondering what would happen if an LDS couple solicited the services of a baker to create a cake in the shape of an LDS temple, and the baker refused on the grounds that he doesn't believe in temple marriage.

A wedding cake shaped like a temple? That's really a thing? 

I've got to be honest, if my wife wanted something like that, I would be grateful for any excuse to have someone other than me shoot that idea down.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...