Supreme Court's Decision in Colorado "Gay Wedding Cake" Case

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

So here's some background on public accommodation laws:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a

It doesn't look like you as a private musician meet the definition of the establishments affected by public accommodation laws.

There may be other state laws that deal with this topic, but I doubt they'd apply to your situation either.

Musicians commonly leave business cards and advertising leaflets in wedding planning or catering businesses. If a musician were to get a business license, do you think she should be subject to the same treatment as the Colorado baker?

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Musicians commonly leave business cards and advertising leaflets in wedding planning or catering businesses. If a musician were to get a business license, do you think she should be subject to the same treatment as the Colorado baker? 

I think everyone with a business should have to serve the public without prejudice based on protected categories. Having said that, sexual orientation isn't a protected category everywhere, but I believe eventually it will be. I'm of the opinion that current protections against discrimination based on gender should apply to gay people as well, since it's essentially gender-based discrimination.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Gray

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Anijen said:

Question: I have been accused of being a racist by subscribing to Phillips view and his decision to not make the wedding cake for the SS couple. Sometimes it is blatant; "Jeff [Anijen]  if you agree with Phillips you then are a racist." Sometimes is thinly veiled such as; "Jeff substitute African American for every time you use the word gay customer. you are taking the view that racists take and have taken in the past." How should I reply? How do I say, "for me it has nothing to do with race, but my religious views?" How do I get that point across?

You have to explain that the case isn't about identity but about speech. The First Amendment protects your right to speak - including the right not to speak. 

And the freedom not to speak must include the freedom not to create speech, and not to participate in others’ speech. 

All the baker wants to do is not participate in this couple's speech (i.e., celebrating their wedding). He refuses to use his artistic talents to make a custom cake for an event that he doesn't want to associate with. 

And I'm willing to be dollars to donuts that the people who are giving you a hard time about the baker didn't say a word about the dressmaker. 

 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Anijen said:

Question: I have been accused of being a racist by subscribing to Phillips view and his decision to not make the wedding cake for the SS couple.

The Phillips case had nothing to do with race.  

For some people, "racist" has become a catchall shorthand insult for anyone who disagrees with them.  See also "fascist," "bigot," "homophobe," "misogynist," etc.  All of these words are commonly deployed as insults, but are largely detached from their actual meanings, and instead are intended as "I don't like you, so I am going to throw a repugnant label at you to shame you into silence."

Quote

Sometimes it is blatant; "Jeff [Anijen]  if you agree with Phillips you then are a racist." Sometimes is thinly veiled such as; "Jeff substitute African American for every time you use the word gay customer. you are taking the view that racists take and have taken in the past." How should I reply?

Point them to the SCOTUS decision (here's a link), particularly this part (pp. 14-15, 17 of the PDF):

Quote

At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. See Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X (Mar. 24, 2015).

...

As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory,” Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X, at 4; featured “language and images [the baker] deemed hateful,” Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X, at 4; or displayed a message the baker “deemed as discriminatory, Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X, at 4. 

The treatment of the conscience-based objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ objection. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division  did not address this point in any of the other cases with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. 

Also read Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion (starting on page 26), including this bit (on page 29) (comparing the Phillips case to one of the three other cases referenced above):

Quote

The facts show that the two cases share all legally salient features. In both cases, the effect on the customer was the same: bakers refused service to persons who bore a statutorily protected trait (religious faith or sexual orientation).  But in both cases the bakers refused service intending only to honor a personal conviction. 

So if these other bakers can refuse to decorate cakes that they deem incompatible with their views, why can't Mr. Phillips do the same?

Quote

To be sure, the bakers knew their conduct promised the effect of leaving a customer in a protected class unserved. But there’s no indication the bakers actually intended to refuse service because of a customer’s protected characteristic. We know this because all of the bakers explained without contradiction that they would not sell the requested cakes to anyone, while they would sell other cakes to members of the protected class (as well as to anyone else). 

This is a very important point.  Mr. Phillips objected not to who was asking him to create a message.  He objected to the message itself.

If someone is telling you, in essence, that you are not allowed to disagree with the morality of same-sex marriage, then you are not dealing with a reasonable person.  Move on.

Quote

How do I say, "for me it has nothing to do with race, but my religious views?" How do I get that point across?

I really would like your opinion here (specifically Smac97 and Scott Lloyd)

Don't fall for the guilt trip these guys are trying to put on you.  They are not trying to have a discussion with you.  They are using false accusations to shun and shame you into silence.

Don't let 'em do it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2018 by smac97

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Musicians commonly leave business cards and advertising leaflets in wedding planning or catering businesses. If a musician were to get a business license, do you think she should be subject to the same treatment as the Colorado baker?

Musicians are unquestionably engaging in speech. As such, you can't be compelled to perform if you don't want to. 

For example, the government can't punish you for refusing to play at Republican-themed events, even if you will play at other political events, and even if the jurisdiction you are in specifically bans discrimination based on political affiliation in public accommodations (e.g., Seattle). Same goes for weddings, bar mitzvahs, or any other event you want to participate in.

Technically, that doesn't mean that you can't be sued for declining to take a gig - just that you ought to win should anyone choose to do so.

 

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Musicians are unquestionably engaging in speech. As such, you can't be compelled to perform if you don't want to. 

For example, the government can't punish you for refusing to play at Republican-themed events, even if you will play at other political events, and even if the jurisdiction you are in specifically bans discrimination based on political affiliation in public accommodations (e.g., Seattle). Same goes for weddings, bar mitzvahs, or any other event you want to participate in.

Technically, that doesn't mean that you can't be sued for declining to take a gig - just that you ought to win should anyone choose to do so.

 

Thanks for this informative response. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think everyone with a business should have to serve the public without prejudice based on protected categories. Having said that, sexual orientation isn't a protected category everywhere, but I believe eventually it will be. I'm of the opinion that current protections against discrimination based on gender should apply to gay people as well, since it's essentially gender-based discrimination.

This does not appear to be in harmony with the Supreme Court decision. 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This does not appear to be in harmony with the Supreme Court decision.  

The Supreme Court hasn't rule on the issue generally, just this specific case because of the way the state handled it.

[smac97]

Here are some interesting thoughts from Kristen Waggoner, the attorney who led the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) team of lawyers in taking Jack Phillips’ case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Quote

This Is Why Masterpiece Cakeshop Is Huge First Amendment Win
Religious freedom for all is more secure because the Supreme Court reminded government it must be scrupulously neutral
by Kristen Waggoner | Updated 07 Jun 2018 at 3:11 PM

Commentators will offer their various interpretations of this important case. Specifically, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims that this case simply addresses Jack’s situation and offers no relief for other creative professionals. But the ACLU’s reading of the decision misses the mark.

My team and I presented two First Amendment issues to the Court for review—artistic freedom and free exercise of religion. The Court decided to tackle only the religious freedom issue because the evidence of anti-religious hostility against Jack was so profound that the court didn’t need to reach the speech question.

That's a fair point.  If the Court of Appeals decision was reversible on Free Exercise grounds alone, any further analysis would be legally superfluous.  So as much as people like me would like to have seen SCOTUS address the Free Speech and other issues in this case, Monday's decision is a pretty good example of "Judicial Restraint" ("a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power ... sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism").

Quote

Jack has never refused to serve any person based on who they are. Everyone is welcome in his shop—even the two men who sued him. But Jack cares deeply about the messages he communicates through his artwork. So over the years, he has declined to create many custom cakes because of the messages on them or the events that they celebrate.

In 2012, Phillips declined a request to create a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. But he was quick to tell the couple that he would design a cake for them for another occasion or sell them anything else in his store.

Yep.  Mr. Phillips was willing to provide his goods and services to a gay couple.  He just wasn't willing to be coerced into using those goods and services to convey a message that violated his religious beliefs.

Quote

Instead of respecting Phillips’ belief about marriage, the state labeled his beliefs discriminatory. One state official even said that using religious freedom “to justify discrimination” is “a despicable piece of rhetoric,” comparing Phillips’ efforts to protect his freedom to arguments raised by slaveholders and Nazis. And the government ordered Phillips to re-educate his employees, which even included his mother, and teach them that he was wrong to operate his own business consistently with his beliefs.

The government telling private actors what to think.  Pretty appalling.

Quote

To make matters worse, the same commission that sidelined Jack’s convictions elevated the convictions of other Colorado cake artists, who were faced with requests for messages that they did not want to create, specifically messages that opposed same-sex marriage.

By so doing, the commissioners showed their bias and demonstrated a nearly poetic double standard concerning the cake artists’ expressive freedom and their willingness to sell other products to the same customers.

Yep.  "Freedom of conscience for me and mine, but not for thee and thine."

Thanks, Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission!  We all know where you stand now.

Quote

It is true that the court’s decision did not directly resolve all the claims of our other creative professional clients—filmmakers, calligraphers, and printers, to name a few—who wish to live out their convictions within the public square. It did, however, reiterate these vital principles:

• “[R]eligious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”
• The government (at local, state, and federal levels) is obligated to consider these kinds of cases “with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.”
• The government is not allowed to pass “judgment upon or [presuppose] the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices,” as it did in Jack’s case.

These are pretty solid points.  It's amazing to me that there are segments of our population that will likely object to them.

Here's the point that became poignant for me as regarding my beliefs (emphasis added):

Quote

Justice Neil Gorsuch said it well in his concurrence: “Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to serving as a refuge for religious freedom.”

The ACLU and its friends might choose to cuff “religious liberty” in scare quotes, but the government—according to this ruling—may no longer deride religion in that way.

This week, when the Supreme Court saw double, it fixed the problem. That’s good news for Jack. And despite what some might say, it’s good news for other creative professionals as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

Wow.... start a new job and be gone for a few weeks and look how much I have to catch up on!!!  I will be reading through the thread, but a couple of thoughts after having made it to only the first few pages (and understanding I’m behind already):

The narrow ruling outcome letting off Masterpiece but leaving intact non-discrimination law isn’t surprising to me and was the one identified as the most likely outcome based on most sources I read, even though I disagree with that ruling.

I just saw this article cross my social media before I came to MD&D. The link to this AZ ruling is embedded in the article below:

Quote

BREAKING: Arizona Appeals Court Applies Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling to Reject a License to Discriminate.

 

In the first lower court ruling applying Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the argument that business owners have a license to discriminate against same-sex couples in Brush & NIB Studio v City of Phoenix.

This case was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

This shows that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop did not change the long-standing rule that businesses that are open to to the public must be open to all.

Discrimination has no place under our Constitution. Business can’t hang up signs saying “your kind not served here.”

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Daniel2

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Wow.... start a new job and be gone for a few weeks and look how much I have to catch up on!!!  I will be reading through the thread, but a couple of thoughts after having made it to only the first few pages (and understanding I’m behind already):

The narrow ruling outcome letting off Masterpiece but leaving intact non-discrimination law isn’t surprising to me and was the one identified as the most likely outcome based on most sources I read, even though I disagree with that ruling.

I just saw this article cross my social media before I came to MD&D. The link to this AZ ruling is embedded in the article below:

Masterpiece Cakeshop was and is "open to all."  As his attorney has noted (see my previous post):

Quote

Jack has never refused to serve any person based on who they are. Everyone is welcome in his shop—even the two men who sued him. But Jack cares deeply about the messages he communicates through his artwork. So over the years, he has declined to create many custom cakes because of the messages on them or the events that they celebrate.

So homosexuals are welcomed to his shop.  But nobody is allowed to coerce him to speak in ways he does not want to speak.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2018 by smac97

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Masterpiece Cakeshop was and is "open to all."  As his attorney has noted (see my previous post):

So homosexuals are welcomed to his shop.  But nobody is allowed to coerce him to speak in ways he does not want to speak.

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand the sophistry of your and Masterpiece lawyer’s argument, but I’m skeptical that it’s legally valid, especially since the appeals court just ruled against Nibs & Brush—a company that’s in the business of actual writing (in this case, invitation calligraphy)...

From what I understand, SCOTUS was silent on that line of thinking, and ruled in favor of Phillips only on the basis of the alleged ‘animosity’ towards his Faith based on the comment made by one committee member. 

But I recognize that cakes may be different than words, so the standards may be different in the two cases. 

And of course, SCOTUS may likely ultimately choose to weigh in on this new Nibs & Brushes case and overturn it (or they may choose to ignore it and let it stand, or take it up and affirm this appellate court’s decision). 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Daniel2

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I understand the sophistry of your and Masterpiece lawyer’s argument,

It's not sophistry. “[R]eligious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

but I’m skeptical that it’s legally valid, especially since the appeals court just ruled against Nib & Brush—a company that’s in the business of actual writing (in this case, invitation calligraphy)...

We'll see, I guess.  Justice Gorsuch lays things out pretty well in his concurring opinion.

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

From what I understand, SCOTUS was silent on that line of thinking, and ruled in favor of Phillips only on the basis of the alleged ‘animosity’ towards his Faith based on the comment made by one committee member. 

But I recognize that cakes may be different than words, so the standards may be different in the two cases. 

Custom-designed cakes are a form of speech.  

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

And of course, SCOTUS may likely ultimately choose to weigh in on this case and overturn it (or they may choose to ignore it and let it stand, or take it up and affirm this appellate court’s decision). 

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not sophistry. “[R]eligious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

We'll see, I guess.  Justice Gorsuch lays things out pretty well in his concurring opinion.

Custom-designed cakes are a form of speech.  

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

If a custom-designed cake for a straight wedding is decorateed and designed exactly the same as the custom-designed cake for a gay wedding, is the speech saying something different?

The legal question may very well come down to whether a person selling a product has any say on how that product is used once it leaves his store.  I can't see how they might have some constitutional right for such control.

[Stargazer]

On 6/4/2018 at 8:02 PM, Gray said:

The holy ones of God are the ones who are meekly and humbly providing service to both gay and straight patrons.

Do you think it would be wrong of me, if I were a baker, to refuse to provide a celebratory cake about someone's abortion, on the basis of my moral or religious objection to abortion?  Would I therefore be unholy?

[Stargazer]

On 6/4/2018 at 8:13 PM, Gray said:

And if someone finds Jewish weddings immoral?

As a rather libertarian person, I find that such a person would be someone I would not seek out to make my own wedding cake, but I would not bring the brickbat of government to bear in order to force them to do something they considered wrong.  

Would you, as a baker, refuse to provide a wedding cake for a man and two women, or a woman and two men, who are having a polyamorous wedding?  I suspect you would, and that's your right, but I believe I would refuse.  I'd still give them well wishes, though.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

If a custom-designed cake for a straight wedding is decorateed and designed exactly the same as the custom-designed cake for a gay wedding, is the speech saying something different?

Yes.  Here's why: What do Adele, The Rolling Stones, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, R.E.M., Elton John, Luciano Pavarotti, Queen and George Harrison have in common?

They are all musicians who, either directly or through representatives, have told Donald Trump to stop using their music at his campaign rallies and events.

Quoth Dee Snider: 

Quote

“When Donald started running for office, he asked me, he called me. He says, 'Can I use the song?' And he's a buddy. And I said, 'Yeah. Go ahead.' But as the months went on, I heard a litany of his beliefs that I'd never discussed with him,” Dee Snider told CNN. "I finally called him and I said, 'Man, you've gotta stop using the song. People think I'm endorsing you here. I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying.' And that night. He has not used it since.”

Quoth an attorney for Aerosmith:

Quote

"Lawyers for Aerosmith wrote a cease and cease-and-desist letter to the Trump campaign claiming the Republican 'did not have our client's permission to use Dream On' or any of Tyler's other songs and that it 'gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid.'"

Quoth representatives of the Pavarotti estate:

Quote

“As members of his immediate family, we would like to recall that the values of brotherhood and solidarity which Luciano Pavarotti expressed throughout the course of his artistic career are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump."

Quoth Queen:

Quote

"Queen does not want its music associated with any mainstream or political debate in any country. Nor does Queen want ‘We are the Champions’ to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump and the political views of the Republican Party."

Quoth Elton John:

Quote

"I’m British. I’ve met Donald Trump, he was very nice to me, it’s nothing personal, his political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years."

The songs being used by Donald Trump are "exactly the same" as they are when used in other venues, and yet these various artists do not want Donald Trump to use their music in his campaign rallies.  Now why is that?  Well...

• "People think I'm endorsing you here.  I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying."
• "[Using Aerosmith songs at Trump rallies] gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid."
• "[Pavarotti's values] are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump."
• "Queen does not want [its music] ... to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump."
• "[H]is political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years."

The use of these artists' "speech" in a particular venue (a Trump rally) is - as you put it "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues.  

More to the point, it's their music.  It's their artistic expression.  It's their speech.  Since when are Americans in Group X in the habit of coercing other Americans in Group Y to speak in ways that contravene the beliefs and values of Group Y?

If Elton John doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Elton John recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a Trump rally gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

Likewise, if Mr. Phillips doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Mr. Phillips recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a gay wedding gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

We're all supposed to like the concept of equal rights, correct?  And yet there are some folks who would deprive Mr Phillips of his right to the use of his artistic speech that is claimed by Elton John and all the other artists quoted above.  These folks cheer the government coercing and punishing Mr. Phillips for refusing the use of his artistic speech at in ways that do not reflect his values, and which use may give the false impression of his endorsement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As a rather libertarian person, I find that such a person would be someone I would not seek out to make my own wedding cake, but I would not bring the brickbat of government to bear in order to force them to do something they considered wrong.  

Would you, as a baker, refuse to provide a wedding cake for a man and two women, or a woman and two men, who are having a polyamorous wedding?  I suspect you would, and that's your right, but I believe I would refuse.  I'd still give them well wishes, though.

We tried Jim Crow before. It was a terrible idea.

[Daniel2]

Everyone,

All the attempts to compare this case to either denying cakes celebrating abortion, those in polyamorous relationships, or musicians denying the use of their copyrighted music to political rallies are entirely irrelevant because neither politicians, polyamorists, nor those who get abortions are legally held to be protected classes qualifying under anti-disscrimination protections (on the basis of their politics or experiences with polyamory or abortion alone).  

Gender does qualify, and, increasingly, so is sexual orientation as those cases continue to wind their way through the court system.

In exactly the same way that musicians can legally deny the use of their music to a broad variety of consumers they disagree with, Mr. Phillips can likewise deny services to politicians, or on the basis of abortion, or on the basis of the vulgarity or offensiveness  of any given message. 

But none of us can discriminate against members of a protected class. 

And I stand by my previous assertion that attempts to muddy the waters by drawing false equivalencies, no matter how eloquently stated or documented, definitely qualifies as sophistry, even when said individuals object to being called out on It.

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Daniel2

[Amulek]

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

All the attempts to compare this case to either denying cakes celebrating abortion or musicians denying the use of their copyrighted music to political rallies are entirely irrelevant because neither politicians nor those who get abortions are legally held to be protected classes qualifying under anti-disscrimination protections. 

Actually, politicians are a protected class in D.C. See below (emphasis added).

 

Quote

D.C. CODE § 2-1411.02

The purpose of the Office is to secure an end to unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and educational institutions for any reason other than that of individual merit. The Office shall seek to eradicate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression (as defined in § 2-1401.02(12A)), familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, physical disability, source of income, and place of residence or business.

 

And in Seattle:

Quote

SEATTLE, WASH. MUN. CODE §§ 14.06.020(L)

L. "Discrimination" means any conduct, whether by single act or as part of a practice, the effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate between or among individuals or groups of individuals, because of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, gender identity, political ideology, honorably discharged veteran or military status, participation in a Section 8 program, the presence of any disability, the use of a service animal by a disabled person, or the right of a mother to breastfeed her child.

 

That's pretty much it though. I think discrimination based on political affiliation may still be prohibited in Virgin Islands as well, but who ever goes there?

Edited June 8, 2018 by Amulek

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Here's why: What do Adele, The Rolling Stones, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, R.E.M., Elton John, Luciano Pavarotti, Queen and George Harrison have in common?

They are all musicians who, either directly or through representatives, have told Donald Trump to stop using their music at his campaign rallies and events.

Quoth Dee Snider: 

Quoth an attorney for Aerosmith:

Quoth representatives of the Pavarotti estate:

Quoth Queen:

Quoth Elton John:

The songs being used by Donald Trump are "exactly the same" as they are when used in other venues, and yet these various artists do not want Donald Trump to use their music in his campaign rallies.  Now why is that?  Well...

• "People think I'm endorsing you here.  I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying."
• "[Using Aerosmith songs at Trump rallies] gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid."
• "[Pavarotti's values] are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump."
• "Queen does not want [its music] ... to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump."
• "[H]is political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years."

The use of these artists' "speech" in a particular venue (a Trump rally) is - as you put it "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues.  

More to the point, it's their music.  It's their artistic expression.  It's their speech.  Since when are Americans in Group X in the habit of coercing other Americans in Group Y to speak in ways that contravene the beliefs and values of Group Y?

If Elton John doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Elton John recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a Trump rally gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

Likewise, if Mr. Phillips doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Mr. Phillips recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a gay wedding gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

We're all supposed to like the concept of equal rights, correct?  And yet there are some folks who would deprive Mr Phillips of his right to the use of his artistic speech that is claimed by Elton John and all the other artists quoted above.  These folks cheer the government coercing and punishing Mr. Phillips for refusing the use of his artistic speech at in ways that do not reflect his values, and which use may give the false impression of his endorsement.

Thanks,

-Smac

This

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Everyone,

All the attempts to compare this case to either denying cakes celebrating abortion, those in polyamorous relationships, or musicians denying the use of their copyrighted music to political rallies are entirely irrelevant because neither politicians, polyamorists, nor those who get abortions are legally held to be protected classes qualifying under anti-disscrimination protections (on the basis of their politics or experiences with polyamory or abortion alone).  

Gender does qualify, and, increasingly, so is sexual orientation as those cases continue to wind their way through the court system.

In exactly the same way that musicians can legally deny the use of their music to a broad variety of consumers they disagree with, Mr. Phillips can likewise deny services to politicians, or on the basis of abortion, or on the basis of the vulgarity or offensiveness  of any given message. 

But none of us can discriminate against members of a protected class. 

And I stand by my previous assertion that attempts to muddy the waters by drawing false equivalencies, no matter how eloquently stated or documented, definitely qualifies as sophistry, even when said individuals object to being called out I It.

 

None of what you wrote applies to the question I asked.  You might want to reread my post.  I was talking about identical cakes and claims of artistic expression. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by california boy

[Daniel2]

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Actually, politicians are a protected class in D.C. See below (emphasis added).

And in Seattle:

That's pretty much it though. I think discrimination based on political affiliation may still be prohibited in Virgin Islands as well, but who ever goes there?

Thanks for posting these. I was aware that D.C. had some protections (which I assume are in place to protect our nation’s capital as the location where divergent and competing political ideologies intersect and collide), but I wasn’t aware of Seattle.  

Obviously, there’s no nationwide federal anti-discrimination protections afforded to political affiliation as a protected class, and I was thinking more along the lines of a recent (April 2018) Federal Judge’s ruling in NYC allowing discrimination based on political affiliation:

Quote

Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says

 

Taylor RockThe Daily Meal

 

April 27, 2018

8:10 am

 

A judge in New York City has ruled in favor of a bar that kicked someone out for wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. According to the New York Post, Philadelphian Greg Piatek was booted from The Happiest Hour in January of 2017, just after Donald Trump's inauguration, because he was wearing a red MAGA cap. 

So the 31-year-old sued the place, claiming the incident "offended his sense of being American," according to the lawsuit. But according to The Happiest Hour's lawyer, Elizabeth Conway, political beliefs are not protected from discrimination by law - only religious beliefs are.

"Supporting Trump is not a religion," she said, according to The Post, to which Piatek's attorney, Paul Liggieri counterpointed, "The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial. He was paying tribute to the victims of 9/11. The Make America Great Again hat was part of his spiritual belief."

https://twitter.com/OfficialJoelF/status/989616315236257794

After an hour-long investigation into Piatek's alleged "spiritual program," the judge decided that there was nothing "outrageous" about the Trump supporter's removal from the bar. It's unclear at this time whether the decision will be appealed, but if Piatek plans on patronizing this bar again, he may want to leave his trucker hat at home.

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Daniel2

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Everyone,

All the attempts to compare this case to either denying cakes celebrating abortion, those in polyamorous relationships, or musicians denying the use of their copyrighted music to political rallies are entirely irrelevant because neither politicians, polyamorists, nor those who get abortions are legally held to be protected classes qualifying under anti-disscrimination protections (on the basis of their politics or experiences with polyamory or abortion alone).  

Gender does qualify, and, increasingly, so is sexual orientation as those cases continue to wind their way through the court system.

As between the Free Speech clause (which protects against compelled speech) and a bigoted application of a so-called "nondiscrimination" statute (as evidenced by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission), the former wins.

I think this article does a good job at providing an assessment of what is going on:

Quote

The New Bigotry
by Erick Erickson
Masterpiece Cake Shop is the beginning, not the end, of the left trying to drive Christians out of the public square.

In 155 AD, Roman authorities ordered a man named Polycarp to burn incense for the Roman Emperor. Witnesses say the local authorities begged Polycarp to comply, some even acknowledging it was a meaningless act. But Polycarp refused. "Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” Polycarp announced. The Roman proconsul had a pyre built to burn Polycarp.

Eyewitnesses say Polycarp told the proconsul there would be no need to tie him to the stake as he would not flee. Others claim the flames would not touch Polycarp so the proconsul ordered him stabbed through the heart.

Sadly, Polycarp did not have constitutional protections against bullies and tyrants.  Fortunately, we do!

Quote

Polycarp’s refusal to do what others told him was meaningless because he viewed it as an affront to his faith is a good lesson for Christians when confronted with the open and increasing bigotry against people of faith in the United States.

Yep.  Bigotry.  By the "gay rights" crowd (at least those that crow about the delights of using the coercive power of government to punish Christians who fail to bend the knee).  That is an entirely apt description, and I think we'll see it more and more.  Society doesn't like bullies, and that is just what the "gay rights" crowd has become.

Quote

You will probably not have heard of Russell Berger. He is a orthodox believing Christian, pastor, and, until last week, was the Chief Knowledge Officer of CrossFit. A local CrossFit gym (they call them boxes) did not want to have a gay pride event and gay rights activists subsequently began harassing the owner of the gym. Berger, on his personal Twitter feed, tweeted, “As someone who personally believes celebrating ‘pride’ is a sin, I’d like to personally encourage #CrossFitInfiltrate for standing by their convictions and refusing to host an @indypride workout.”

He continued, “The intolerance of the LGBTQ ideology toward any alternative views is mind-blowing. The tactics of some in the LGBTQ movement toward dissent is an existential threat to freedom of expression. The lack of tolerance for disagreement, which has been replaced with bullying Twitter mobs promising ‘consequences’, should be a concern regardless of your political stance.” The LGBTQ community then proved him exactly right and demanded his termination. CrossFit bowed to the mob and terminated Berger for daring to express his personal views on his personal Twitter presence.

Russell Berger.  Another casualty for speaking words verboten by our current crop of self-appointed thought police.

Quote

CrossFit bowing to the mob came only a few days after the Supreme Court sided with Masterpiece Cake Shop against anti-Christian bigots in Colorado. Gay activists targeted Jack Philips, the owner and a renown cake designer. The activists asked Philips to design a wedding cake for them and he declined. Though others told Philips a wedding cake was a meaningless thing, Philip stood like Polycarp and said God created marriage between a man and a woman and he would not use his God given talents to celebrate a wedding that mocks God’s design.

Philips does not create cakes for Halloween, which he considers a pagan holiday, or for several other events. But he does make cakes for gay couples. He even offered to bake for this gay couple. He just declined to do the wedding cake. 

Aye, there's the rub.  Mr. Phillips declined to speak what others want to use the coercive power government to force him to speak.  He wanted the right to refrain from compelled speech, the same way the three subsequent secular bakers were allowed to refrain.  But because Mr. Phillips is a Christian, he was punished.  By the bigoted Civil Rights Commission, the same commission that then went to to protected secular refusals of compelled speech.

More to the point, Mr. Phillips didn't decline to serve gay customers.  He declined to produce a particular item, regardless of who was asking for it.

Quote

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing a 7-2 decision for the Supreme Court, sided with Philips. The Court found that one commissioner described Philip’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” Kennedy noted that disparaged Philip’s “religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical —something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

Yep.  The bigotry of the "Civil Rights Commission" is laid bare.  

48 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In exactly the same way that musicians can legally deny the use of their music to a broad variety of consumers they disagree with, Mr. Phillips can likewise deny services to politicians, or on the basis of abortion, or on the basis of the vulgarity or offensiveness  of any given message. 

Well, we are in agreement, then.  If Mr. Phillips finds gay marriage offensive, he cannot be compelled to speak in favor of it.

Or perhaps not.  Christians, it seems, are not to be allowed to "deny services ... on the basis of the ... offensiveness of any given message."  Because they are Christians.  They are to be punished.  By those gays and lesbians who cannot tolerate diversity of opinion, or Free Speech, or Free Exercise, and who enjoy using the power of government to destroy Christians do not bend the knee.

-Smac

P.S. I am referencing "Christians" particularly here because it is my perception that it is Christians who are being specifically targeted.  They are not a favored group, you see.  By way of example, can anyone point to instances where gay rights activists have targeted a Muslim business owner or entrepreneur and threatened to sue him/her unless he speaks in favor of gay marriage?  I haven't seen that, and I don't think we will.  Because Christians are the targets of this particular battlefield of the Culture Wars.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This

That.

Quote

None of what you wrote applies to the question I asked.  You might want to reread my post.  I was talking about identical cakes and claims of artistic expression. 

I read it.  

The comparison is apt.  You are talking about "identical cakes."  I am talking about identical songs.  

For example, Donald Trump wants to use a recording of Aerosmith's "Dream On" during a rally.  Aerosmith has said no.  The song is the same, but the venue and way it is being used matters to Aerosmith.

The use of these artists' "speech" in a particular venue (a Trump rally) is - as you put it - "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues.  

The use of Mr. Phillips's "speech" in a particular venue (a gay wedding) is - as you put it - "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues.

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for posting these. I was aware that D.C. had some protections (which I assume are in place to protect our narion’s capital as the locations where divergent and competing political ideologies intersect and collide), but I wasn’t aware of Seattle.  Obviously, there’s no federal protections afforded to political affiliation as a protected class, and I was thinking more along the lines of a recent (April 2018) Federal Judge’s ruling in NYC allowing discrimination based on political affiliation:

Quote

Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says

 

Taylor RockThe Daily Meal

 

A judge in New York City has ruled in favor of a bar that kicked someone out for wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. According to the New York Post, Philadelphian Greg Piatek was booted from The Happiest Hour in January of 2017, just after Donald Trump's inauguration, because he was wearing a red MAGA cap. 

So the 31-year-old sued the place, claiming the incident "offended his sense of being American," according to the lawsuit. But according to The Happiest Hour's lawyer, Elizabeth Conway, political beliefs are not protected from discrimination by law - only religious beliefs are.

Unless you are a Christian baker in Colorado, in which case it's "Bake me a cake, bigot!"

Quote

Quote

"Supporting Trump is not a religion," she said, according to The Post, to which Piatek's attorney, Paul Liggieri counterpointed, "The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial. He was paying tribute to the victims of 9/11. The Make America Great Again hat was part of his spiritual belief."

https://twitter.com/OfficialJoelF/status/989616315236257794

After an hour-long investigation into Piatek's alleged "spiritual program," the judge decided that there was nothing "outrageous" about the Trump supporter's removal from the bar. It's unclear at this time whether the decision will be appealed, but if Piatek plans on patronizing this bar again, he may want to leave his trucker hat at home.

 

Actually, I agree with the judge.  I think a bar should be able to control the behavior and speech of its patrons.  I would likewise support the owner of a gay bar who ejects a person wearing a "Marriage is Between Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" t-shirt.  That's a message that is likely to be offensive to other patrons of the bar.  The bar is private property and is not providing an essential service, so the owner should be able to regulate behavior there.

Antidiscrimination statutes should be more narrowly tailored.  The Free Market will take care of most things.  If a gay bar owner does not want to take the money of an opponent of same-sex marriage, there are plenty of bars that will.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2018 by smac97